Back in June, Ethics Alarms set off quite a donnybrook over a post about a second grade teacher in San Diego who was fired over concerns for the safety of staff and students after the teacher’s ex-husband came to the school to confront her. The teacher protested that the school was abandoning her when she needed support most, which was indeed true. But Ethics Alarms concluded…
“This is the kind of ethical conflict involving competing interests and obligations that only a balancing approach, utilitarianism, can address properly. The husband is Carie’s problem. He is not the school’s problem. It is not the students’ problem. It is not the children’s parents’ problem. I know it’s not an easy problem for her to solve, but she has no right to insist or demand that her inability to solve her problem should be permitted to put others at unnecessary risk…Sometimes ethics is a zero sum game, and someone has to lose. This is one of those times…”
Ethics conflicts (where two or more ethical principles are in direct opposition) necessarily require making tough choices, but many readers didn’t like the analysis, pronouncing it “cold.” “There has to be some other solution,” wrote one commenter. Certainly there are other solutions, but the school was obligated to choose the solution that resulted in the least risk to their primary charges, the kids.
And if children aren’t at risk?
That’s the question raised by the most recent occurrence of the zero sum ethics scenario, in which Nancy Lane, a popular Pennsylvania radio host, has been terminated by her employers because of the threats made against her and the company by her ex-husband. The ex, George Lane, is currently jailed for impersonating police. In the recent past he has repeatedly threatened Nancy, her family and coworkers, and last year hired someone to slash the tires of several company vehicles at Forever Broadcasting, Nancy Lane’s now former employers, who severed its ties with her by writing,
“Regrettably recent events involving your former husband has caused severe disruption to our business and has made this decision necessary.”
Lane has posted a petition protesting her dismissal. It reads, in part…
“Every single day, women all over the United States are victims of domestic violence. It affects every facet of their lives, and one of those ways is through their employment. A large amount of employers would rather choose to terminate the abused rather than support them….I am one of those victims and I would like to see such practices stopped. We have to rally against this together. In seven months I have had to go into hiding, I have been harassed via e-mail, prison letter, Facebook, had my tires slashed at my job, had my estranged husband put hits out on me, and now my employment has been stripped from me as well. My job was the one place that I retreated to for a sense of normal and now it is gone. Just trying to live has been a struggle for me as it feels I have to fight just for a life. Please help me in the fight to stop such acts. Tell Forever Broadcasting to rethink its decision and apologize.”
I’m sorry, Nancy; I’m not signing. My position in this situation, tragic as it is, is the same as before. We all have an obligation to keep our private life from adversely affecting our work. Forever Broadcasting’s ethical duty is not to risk its business, the health and safety of its employees, and expensive lawsuits for the benefit of one employee in crisis; its duty is, in fact, the exact opposite. The duty is to eliminate the potential workplace disruption and danger, and to get on with its mission. This decision is necessarily cruel and unfair from Nancy’s point of view, but that is what zero sum ethics is. For the company to meet its primary obligations requires it to leave Nancy to her own resources. It would be irresponsible for Forever Broadcasting to do anything else. Nancy Lane has no right or justification to demand that the company shift its priorities from broadcasting to helping the victims of domestic abuse.
Cold, I suppose, but true.
_____________________
Facts: The Blaze
Graphic: Chris Lema
Ethics Alarms 
I have to agree.
I also wouldn’t think poorly if anyone beat these assholes making threats to within an inch of their lives.
And I dont much care with direction that inch is in.
My question is, when you say, “We all have an obligation to keep our private life from adversely affecting our work,” what amount of effort on her part constitutes living up to this obligation?
Asking her husband nicely? Yeah, that’ll work.
Filing restraining orders? Most are broken with impunity.
Hiring bodyguards? Hope she’s got the $$
What recourse did she have when all reasonable and/or legal avenues are pursued to no positive resolution? Ordering a hit on *him*?
How ethical is it when the ex-husband wins, in the sense that he continues to maliciously ruin her life from behind bars? What use is ethics when bad behavior is rewarded and the victim is punished?
And ultimately, what happens when the just outcome isn’t the ethical one? What happens when justice and ethics don’t match?
Ok, so keep her on at the job…
Then the husband ruins lives and livelihoods of more than just her.
Not sure where you see the advantage.
Well, I agree with Scott there about the “inch” part. But don’t tell Jack, because that wouldn’t be ethical.
And Tex, you’re answering questions I didn’t ask, and not answering the ones I did ask.
Well, in a situation that values the individual’s right to security and self defense (which our culture is rapidly eroding), an ethical thing to do is for the woman to tell the offending person “come threaten me or third parties again and I will kill you”.
Then he can either take her seriously and stop or not and then she’ll have to put her money where her mouth is and end the threat.
And I know that comment will drum out all the lefties crying about violence and nonsense. Sorry, measured violence enacted by a good person against someone committing wrong, stops the wrong.
Then someone will inevitably say that the victim usually loses those confrontations. I’d say only because other factors we’ve allowed to slip as a society continue to advantage the wrongful aggressor as well as people aren’t taught how to appropriately ramp up or down confrontations anymore.
I think, more to the point, is that he doesn’t have to “come” threaten- he can call in threats all day. The company is still put in the position of balancing one person’s job against a threat of possible credulity, not only because of safety but because of the devastating lawsuits that would result if they knew about the threat and did nothing. Meanwhile, you’d have a hell of an uphill battle to claim justifiable homicide because someone made a threat on the telephone.
My assessment doesn’t compel the company to keep the woman on. My assessment solves the woman’s problem. The company solved its problem correctly.
No. More often, it produces this sequence:-
– The good person becomes a bad person (Nietsche and abyss, anybody?).
– The second bad person represses the wrong being done by the first bad person, but only puts it on hiatus.
– The repression and later acts of the second bad person create further wrongs.
Sure thing Chamberlain…
No. More often, it produces this sequence:-
– The good person becomes a bad person (Nietsche and abyss, anybody?).
You’re discounting countless societies policing their own and insuring the well-being of those who could not protect themselves. You ignore thousands who have stood up against criminals, rapist and evil.
– The second bad person represses the wrong being done by the first bad person, but only puts it on hiatus.
Unless broken, see below.
– The repression and later acts of the second bad person create further wrongs.
So don’t take a stand because they will just do it again at a later date? Repression doesn’t continue to work? Because?
I wasn’t discounting any of the cases that work out differently; didn’t you spot my “More often”, that was meant to acknowledge that it wasn’t a hard and fast rule? I was describing the more usual outcome of the general pattern of behaviour that was outlined, though, because that there was a blanket statement. Sure, things can be done to head off that result, but even so it is still worth bearing in mind what can happen all the same. There are enough stories going around these days about policemen doing bad things and still being supported by the police ethos; that should show you that the moral decay and bad consequences I described can happen despite the best meaning precautions.
They often don’t match.
We pay for our mistakes. She married a violent nut job, and, unfortunately, she’s the one who will pay the price for the mistake. The rule isn’t “do your best to keep your private life from interfering with you job.” The rule is: if it happens, and there isn’t a law forcing the business to accommodate you, then you are in trouble. Strict liability.
If this lady worked for the Russian mob or a Colombian drug cartel, what do you think would have happened to the ex-husband?
Or was a Kennedy.
Then we have what the true ethical solution is.
What if more simply, less extreme, she had 3 brothers. Do you think this would happen in the first place? Or if it still did a resolution wouldn’t have been found?
Yes.
It is justified because he is a threat.
Exactly.
It just drives me crazy, as this is the heckler’s veto writ large- I yell nastiness at your work, and they fire you because of it, and are ruled not only not wrong but ethically correct. This isn’t a case where both options have their points and I cant’ decide, this is one of those cases where any course of action gives me the willies.
Unfortunately, something of the “village” mentality (from the oft-quoted principle that “it takes a village to raise a child), which posits that everyone has to help everyone else out, seems to have leached into the thinking of the people opposed to these decisions, causing them to miss the distinction between the larger, nebulous community of the “village” and the very small, very finite community of a business or public service with enumerated responsibilities. Those in charge of those smaller, finite communities have to make decisions based on what’s best for the business or best for the mission, not helping a single member of that community handle outside problems that could put others at risk, even if they are facing a sensitive issue like domestic violence. (here something of the “if we can save one child” mentality also can leach into the thinking of those who disagree). This leaching is frankly toxic do-gooderism and rightly rejected by those who have their eyes where they belong, on the primary goal of the organization.
I have to also add that statements like “there has to be some other solution” border sometimes on wishful thinking. If I had a nickel for every time I read or heard that phrase when it looked like the use of force was going to be necessary or in past tense after force had been used, from Libya to Panama, the first Gulf War, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, and outside the US for things like the Japanese embassy siege in Peru, I’d be a very rich man. Yet when I asked the users what alternatives they proposed, half the time I’d get pie in the sky solutions that were not practical, the other half I’d simply get “I don’t know, but this isn’t it.”
I’ve heard the same phraseology many times when the best possible resolution of a problem was going to end up hurting someone or not achieve perfect justice. What it boils down to is the user of the phrase doesn’t like any resolution less than a perfect one and is grasping for a perfect solution that doesn’t exist. I won’t pretend I’ve read everything here, but I think something’s been said to the effect that the ethical thing to do is to go with the most ethical solution that is actually possible, not to wish or advocate for the impossible or irresponsible. This petition sounds like classic irresponsibility.
I might also throw out the idea of what I’ll call ripple responsibility, based on the fact that throwing a stone produces ripples and though we don’t necessarily know where they’ll end up, we can at least think on where they logically will and are obligated to before we throw the stone. I am personally acquainted with half a dozen women who chose to marry less than stable “bad boys,” although the fact that they were less than stable “bad boys” was visible to anyone with at least one working eye. Years later, most of them are still feeling the ripples of their poor choices, and so are their families and those friends who stick by them. Many more friends, acquaintances, etc., choose to walk away from those ripples, as they don’t want or need the added drama. In the end it was she who threw the stone who is ethically responsible for the ripples.
Fascinating case, thank you. It raises two questions, one of them on which I am completely up in the air, the other on which I have some thoughts.
First. Is there ever, can there ever be, a case in which the right thing for a company to do is nonetheless beyond what any of the rest of us, as individuals or groups, are entitled to demand that they do? Maybe another way to put that is, is there symmetry between the ethical obligations of one party and the rightful ethical expectations of other parties? Or, alternatively, is there some scale of high ethical behavior available to all of us, but beyond which nobody has the right to demand? Maybe an analogy is medal-justifying courage under fire in battle.
The other question I have more of a point of view on. It seems to me that a quite proper mission of a company can be to include its employees as stakeholders on par with others. We are getting past the narrowminded view that a corporation only obligation is to shareholders, so this is not a radical proposition.
In addition, and I am influenced by currently reading a biography of Marvin Bauer, you can make a pretty good case I’m purely business terms that the devotion to the welfare of employees as individual human beings, extending past the W-2 form relationship, is a remarkably powerful business strategy. McKinsey is Exhibit A, but there are others.
So a general question this raises is, is there perhaps a much tighter link between the ethics of the company and the support of an aggrieved employee? As you know, zero-sum games are anathema to ethical relationships. Maybe this one doesn’t have to be?
While I agree that the organization must focus on what is in the best interests of the shareholders of the firm, its customers, and its employees, management’s focus is too often centered on short term goal achievement rather than long-term share holder value creation.
What exactly is the impact on the business itself. All I know is that it had a few tires slashed. Maybe there is more. I don’t know but it appears that most of the harassment is directed at the employee and not the station. If that fact is unquestioned and provable then additional charges should be filed against him by the firm and the victim.
What message does the termination send to the remaining employees – you are only valuable until something happens outside your control that we deem is detrimental to the station. This is hardly a sentiment that reinforces employee loyalty.
What happens if an employee at the station is stricken with a catastrophic illness that will require substantial health care costs? Do we cut them from the payroll before we incur the increased costs in health care premiums so as to protect the remaining employees and shareholder value? Would we boot a child from class because a threat of kidnapping by a non-custodial parent exist?
We must also ask ourselves, would this same decision be made if the CEO of Forever Broadcasting was the subject to identical harassment? Would the consequences be the same? If not, then the termination is unethical.
I understand the reasons but am not in complete agreement that the radio host should have been terminated for the actions of her ex-husband. The idea that we protect the group by sacrificing the weak to the predator works fine in the jungle but human predators can only be stopped when met with uncompromising power; and we are not animals without the ability to reason. The predator always separates the prey from the pack. That is the modus operandi of the predator. If we took a lesson from the African water buffalo that puts the weak inside the herd and faces the predator head on, maybe the harassment would stop.
Forever Broadcasting operates in 5 different markets with over twenty stations. It seems to me that she could have been provided an opportunity to work in an alternate capacity in one of the other markets. This would help her find employment in an area unknown to the ex- husband. Granted she would have to take steps to protect the identity of her location but if the perpetrator is jailed it will be far more difficult for him to track her down. Such options should be considered first and termination should be the last resort.
I came to this conclusion by asking myself would I turn this employee over to the ex-husband who shows up at the office and threatens to kill everyone if I did not turn her over. My answer was that I’d look for every other alternative first before I did so.
While I agree that the organization must focus on what is in the best interests of the shareholders of the firm, its customers, and its employees, management’s focus is too often centered on short term goal achievement rather than long-term share holder value creation.
The immediate duty is to create a safe environment for your employees, everything else is secondary. She was the target and everyone around her was in the danger zone, removing her removes the threat to others, it is rapid and most effective. It is also the most responsible thing to do not just for the employees but also for the shareholders, customers. If this threat was not from her personal life but one based on her professional interactions then the company has duty to step in.
What exactly is the impact on the business itself. All I know is that it had a few tires slashed. Maybe there is more. I don’t know but it appears that most of the harassment is directed at the employee and not the station.
Collateral damage is ok just so long as that damage wasn’t caused by a threat directed at it?
What message does the termination send to the remaining employees – you are only valuable until something happens outside your control that we deem is detrimental to the station. This is hardly a sentiment that reinforces employee loyalty.
The message you want to send is we don’t give a shit about you and if Nancy’s ex or friends shoots up the joint or vandalizes your car it is your problem because she needs a job and her personal mess is just baggage that they have to deal with. If Nancy went bankrupt because she can’t budget I suppose the company and employees should burden themselves with getting her out of that as well.
What happens if an employee at the station is stricken with a catastrophic illness that will require substantial health care costs? Do we cut them from the payroll before we incur the increased costs in health care premiums so as to protect the remaining employees and shareholder value?
If the plan they have covers that catastrophic illness then they should cover it, if it does not then she should have considered supplemental insurance.
Would we boot a child from class because a threat of kidnapping by a non-custodial parent exist?
Yes As a minor there are more concerns and issues but the immediate response is to eliminate the threat to the other children.
I understand the reasons but am not in complete agreement that the radio host should have been terminated for the actions of her ex-husband.
And if she had an uncontrollable contagious disease, she should be allowed to go to work because it is the disease not her correct? Let’s not consider that she may have made some bad personal decisions, has a duty to inform and expects others who have no duty to her to make sacrifices for her to solve her problem.
The idea that we protect the group by sacrificing the weak to the predator works fine in the jungle but human predators can only be stopped when met with uncompromising power; and we are not animals without the ability to reason. The predator always separates the prey from the pack. That is the modus operandi of the predator. If we took a lesson from the African water buffalo that puts the weak inside the herd and faces the predator head on, maybe the harassment would stop.
And what do you say to the water buffalo that was forced, not choose, to stand on the outside when predator sinks its teeth into it? The appearance of strength is not the same as strength and those who are forced between the prey and predator generally get hurt. The best way to defeat a predator is by breaking it, the most effective way to do that is with force.
Such options should be considered first and termination should be the last resort.
If the problem does happen at the next location? Removing the threat to employees is the first step, removing her does that with no other action required.
I came to this conclusion by asking myself would I turn this employee over to the ex-husband who shows up at the office and threatens to kill everyone if I did not turn her over.
Good thing they fired her, now they will never have to face that choice.
Stephen,
I must say you are consistent in your approach. I just want to address a couple of points that you made.
I agree that the employer must work to make the workplace safe for all.
How much safer are the other employees if the object of his action is terminated but the aggressor is unaware of the termination? How will the firm communicate their surrender to his rage? Will they let him know and how will it be communicated?
If they can prove that it was the employee’s aggressor who slashed the tires, why did they not file charges? Is it not possible that someone unrelated to the situation slashed the tires for a different reason. Terminating the employee may give a false sense of security, but provides none.
You are correct that we have no legal duty to assist others in a jam and if we choose to assist we understand that it involves some risk to ourselves. I suppose using your rationale that if I approach an auto crash where the car is burning and I see people trapped inside I should just call the fire department and wait. I should not try to assist them in getting out because my first obligation is to myself and my family.
You completely misinterpreted my catastrophic illness example. My point was should a person be terminated to prevent a future increases in premiums for all employees that will result from the insurer having to pay out on this illness. I never suggested that they would not or whether the illness was covered.
Actually the message they sent was we don’t give a shit about you because you are on your own and around here it’s every person for themselves. This attitude will develop into a CYA approach toward each other. Employees will throw everyone including the firm under the bus to protect themselves. Using your logic, every person who needs to obtain a restraining order against another should be terminated simply because the possibility exists that a loon will come in and shoot the place up. Your bankruptcy and contagious disease rebuttals are specious. Nowhere did I suggest that the employee’s individual behavior that has a negative impact on the firm be acceptable.
Read what I said ” The idea that we protect the group by sacrificing the weak to the predator works fine in the jungle but human predators can only be stopped when met with uncompromising power.
You said, “The best way to defeat a predator is by breaking it, the most effective way to do that is with force.”
Who is willing to step up and break it? Someone has to and apparently it will not be you because you do not want to be between the prey and the predator out of fear of being harmed. I used the African Water Buffalo as an example because the herd uses its collective power to shield its weaker members. It is the most dangerous animal on the Serengeti because it stands up to perceived threats as a whole group. The lion realizing the danger immediately backs down when confronted by “uncompromising power”. Its the same for all bullies. When confronted with uncompromising power they back down every time.
Terminating the employee does not eliminate the threat unless you communicate that the object of aggression has been terminated to the aggressor. I assume then you would agree that informing the aggressor that the subject is no longer working there would be the appropriate action. What do you do if he demands to know where you sent her last paycheck? Do you volunteer that information too?
Here’s the rub, if he comes to the office and says he will start shooting if you don’t turn her over to him the termination effectively eliminated any option that you had. If he is crazy enough to do that what makes you think he will believe you that you fired her and are not simply hiding her.
My entire point was summed up much better by the response from Steven that Jack used as the comment of the day on this issue. Steven articulated my idea much better than I.
What on earth would it mean to “face the predator head on” for a colleague of Nancy’s? Am I supposed to confront my co-worker’s unhinged ex myself? Sorry, not in my job description.
Chris’s attitudes are appropriate if he holds the comparison to the whole Community, not just the work place. I would submit that a healthy community would confront the aggressor in various and appropriate forms: some may shun, some may verbally confront, some may ostracize, on a whole the community would be prepared to meet force with force.
That those ideals have been eroded in the community has led to the situation where this woman is somewhat stuck.
Thanks Tex
No, the solution is to strike at the dead of the night when no one is looking.
Not quite; the logical sequence is usually the other way around. The predator preys on whichever animal ends up getting separated from the herd (not pack). Sometimes an animal has a visible distinguishing feature that the predator(s) can focus efforts on, which gets it chosen as prey before being separated, but more often it is the fact of getting separated when chased that reveals an animal to be old or weak (or just unlucky), and so easy prey.
PM It is the often the predator’s tactics that will attempt to disperse the group in order to separate the weak from the strong. Such as the case in the example. Slash the tires – create fear – separate the weak with the help of management – dominate the object of aggression.
Of course – but the point I was trying to bring out was that that description is (usually) wrong. That’s because it’s making out that the predator’s method is separating the weak. No, that’s the predator’s objective. Strictly speaking, its method is to separate the strong, as those are the ones it drives away; it then goes after those that are left over, so attaining its objective.
What message does the termination send to the remaining employees – you are only valuable until something happens outside your control that we deem is detrimental to the station. This is hardly a sentiment that reinforces employee loyalty.
***********
You’re looking at it the wrong way.
The 30 or so other employees of the station have a right to a safe workplace and not fearing getting shot full of holes by someone else’s nutjob ex.
If the station can’t hire an armed guard to keep everyone safe then the wife has to go, AND she should appreciate the circumstances and go willingly.
This lady is forgetting the rights of others, an all to common affliction of the entitlement crowd.
I would have started wearing a ccw to work, and hung out near the door a lot.
The entitlement crowd?
I’d love to hear from senior managers at Google, GE, McKinsey, PwC, Goldman, Prudential, AmEX and some other big companies, whom I suspect are far more likely to believe they owe their employees something more than culling the herd in the face of a dirtbag wacko ex-.
No doubt there are others–WalMart? –and a lot of smaller companies–who believe as you do, but I suspect “the entitlement crowd” is a lot more mainstream corporate than you think. (Unless you feel Goldman et al are seriously commie-pinko-wussies?)
Those companies are also more likely to either already have armed guards, or be able to afford to hire some for a short term.
Which doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t his job.
Which also raises the question of how they got to be so big and successful. At least two of those I know will tell you it’s because they’d have done the same for employees when they were at a smaller size.
How about it; any small firms out there who disagree? Or is it only large firms who can afford to join “the entitlement crowd?”
You are protesting a non-issue. When someone expects something they otherwise don’t naturally deserve, then they are by definition acting “entitled”. THAT HOWEVER, does not make employers who chose NOT to cull members of their staff, for similar reasons as the one discussed, as inculcating entitlement attitudes.
I think your attacking a strawman here.
You’re missing my (obviously lame) attempt at sarcasm.
I quite agree with you that, even if one works for an enlightened employer who takes the long view of employees, one ought not to take it for granted. And if one doesn’t work for such an employer, public entreaties for them to change their evil ways are silly and ineffectual at best.
I should have been more clear that I was reacting to Finley’s characterization of the obligations of the firm, rather than to his characterization of the ethical failings of the victim. And I wasn’t clear on that in the words I wrote – you’re right.
I know that you dont have really any working grasp of economics, but if you don’t grasp how a large and successful company manages to become large and successful then we are going to be here a while.
Scott,
Really? You want to go toe to toe on knowing how a large company gets successful?
MBA, 20 years top management consulting, 3 books, 12 years as independent speaker and senior coach to Fortune 100 firms. That’s where I learned it. You?
And professional ship-builders built the Titanic.
The fact that you have repeatedly stated opinions that are counter to actual economics tells me a great deal about your “knowledge” of the subject.
But it was a nice try at Argument from Authority, so you have that going for you…
Oh goodie, Scott, let’s do this one. Tell me ONE “opinion that is counter to economics,” and why. Let’s see what you’ve got.
Well, in fairness, though related, business knowledge and economics don’t necessarily cross well enough tht expertise in one creates expertise in the other.
I don’t doubt your business credentials (except the MBA… I haven’t met an MBA graduate yet who has more business knowledge than the average joe, but your experiences are sound).
(Of course that is hyperbole)
And I didn’t mean for the MBA jab to be so snarky and rude now that I re-read it. They take alot of time to complete.
Merely tryin to point out there is a difference in business knowledge and economic knowledge.
Again, sorry!
TexAgg, No offense taken and no apologies needed (but thanks for the gesture). I agree, they are indeed very different areas, and it’s a toss up which is worse–economists meddling in business (Friedman, Greenspan) or MBAs meddling in economics (Bush, Romney). Arguably the generalist amateurs have done better at economics than have the business people (the biggest mistake MBAs make is to assume an economy is like a company), though a few economists have been very successful in business (Fama, Keynes).
But–if my expertise in business makes me ill-suited to economics, then it ought to be DOUBLY easy to find ONE example of where my economic recommendations are “counter to economics,” and why.
And yet here I sit, still waiting to hear it.
Texagg04, thanks for your gracious comments. Speaks well for you.
I’ll ignore your subtle paean to Keynes, cleverly worded, but does nothing to support his theories, nor discredit Friedman’s theories.
You asked for examples of your errors on the economy.
This discussion includes many of them, with their associated deconstructions.
I plead guilty to the sneaky inclusion of Keynes in there, as charged.
However – THAT’S the example you want to give? A 60-part thread that meanders all over the place is your example of how I’m violating economics? I ask for ONE EXAMPLE and you cite a thread? Care to be a little more precise?
This is also one of your more ad hominem-loaded performances, where you repeatedly refuse to refute a Keynesian point on the merits, but just keep on yelling Keynes! Keynes! like it’s supposed to elicit some Pavlovian response from the masses. Of course, if you couldn’t be precise on the merits then, why should we expect you to be precise on the merits now. even when SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT ON IT AND ASKED TO CITE ONE, SINGLE, SIMPLE ECONOMIC ERROR.
Even more curious you’d pick one from a year ago too about how horrible the debt crisis was. Have you read the headlines lately about the debt crisis? How about TODAY, where even Boehner was forced to give up the hostage taking strategy in the face of reality. Jeez even I could have picked a tougher example than that one!
OK then, stay tuned; if in response to a request for JUST ONE example the best you can come up with is a year-old 60-comment diatribe, get ready for a lengthy rebuttal of your content-free ramblings. (I’d do it now but I’ve got flights all day).
Really? The guy who sends links to articles and books on a regular basis and insists his opponents read them is complaining when presented with like?
Double standard much?
Each of those discussions linked does consist of LISTS of your errors and demonstrations of their error.
I have yet to list “Keynes” as a reason why you are wrong. He may be the lead in to discuss why Keynesianism is wrong:
1) Insistence that debt is irrelevant
2) Insistence that inflation is irrelevant
3) Insistence that economies can be controlled
4) Insistence that economies can be ‘stimulated’ (they can, but only temporarily and it’s utility doesn’t last, because printing dollars doesn’t create VALUE – the actual source of economic stimulation)
5) Insistence that incentivizing non-production will lead to less non-productive people.
among others.
“Show me ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of my arguing a point that you think is economically wrong, and explain why”
You are insufferably obtuse. You bellyache about the very strategy you employ ad nauseum on here: linking to requested material. If you must bemoan others for using links, you’d better cease your own usage of such. Get over your martyr routine. Your questions have been answered, you are now playing the deflective fool whose been called out.
Since you wish to play the 6 year old, I will treat you like one. Here, spelled out, read slowly please:
“…then WHY IN THE WORLD wouldn’t we borrow up the wazoo…”
” debt perfectly well CAN increase forever, and as long as it grows at a lower rate than GDP it’s not a big deal…”
DEBT IS BAD. It’s pretty self-evident; so self-evident, the pro-debtists have to shrug it off.
If we continue on this path, by 2020, INTEREST PAYMENTS ALONE WILL BE $2,000,000,000,000 (read as TWO – TRILLION). That’s right. Your assertion “as long as the economy keeps growing, why wouldn’t we spend out the wazoo” is somewhat wild eyed and infantile when, not even DOUBLE DIGIT economic growth will allow for us to pay the interest, new debt, and actual running of the government, without massive taxation. Not Democrat style tax increases either mind you.
Oh, that’s also if the interest rate isn’t increased to more natural levels.
Never mind the cultural rot this instills, not only do we have a public debt problem; this attitude of our leaders trickles down to everyone else, leading to a private debt epidemic, which mathematically CAN NEVER BE PAID OFF. Creditors don’t like when a scenario exists in which debt will NEVER be paid off. Debtors don’t like when scenarios exist in which they can never realize their own private wealth potential because they are in essence, debt slaves.
Yes sir, Debt is socially destabilizing. Historically, debt cycles inevitably create a wildly disparate wealth-holding between the nation’s creditors and the nation. Those creditors end up wielding the behind the scenes political might. Until crisis and collapse (which are not attractive) – read Ancient Greece when the city-states emerged (mostly under tyrants who arbitrarily forgave debts, leading greece into a dark ages until they clawed out of that), read Rome, which after it collapsed under the financial weight of debt, Europe slipped into chaos for centuries before emerging.
“…we need government to step up to the plate and provide stimulus…”
Obama’s $875,000,000,000 stimulus resulted in no significant gain in employment or boost to the economy, and arguably resulted in a loss to both (hidden conveniently by the stat covering “people no longer trying to find work but could”).
Bush’s stimulus failed as well.
When naturally occurring demand IS NOT PRESENT, no amount of wealth redistribution or debt based stimuli can create it. Demand exists more readily when the future is stable and investors and entrepreneurs are more confident that rampant changes by the government don’t make starting businesses or investments too risky.
The belief that supplying money to an economy that doesn’t represent any naturally derived VALUE will increase consumption has been proven incorrect time and again, as predicted by Friedman. Temporary boosts to income result in temporary tiny boosts in consumption, because the consumers know the money won’t last and will behave in hunker down mode until confidence is restored in the economy: a confidence that will not be restored with our DEBT exploding and Leftists ever ready to regulate the hell out of the start up entrepreneur and investor.
For your interest:
Great reading
this too
and this
anothern
nifty bit
piling on
and some more
darkly amusing at this point
you should like this one, it’s about Austerians
this one also
and to mirror the claim that stimulus wasn’t tried hard enough, here’s a better one, austeriy wasn’t tried hard enough
Ok, ok, it’s gotten old. Happy reading.
Another one where your errant economic ideas are debunked
And here
And I repeat, perhaps for the fifth time now – can you point to one single economic argument of mine and its rebuttal?
Waving people in the general direction of 60-comment multi-person threads and asserting “somewhere here a rebuttal happens” is utterly unresponsive. Particularly from someone who claims that argument from authority is inadequate, this is pathetic.
Admit it – you got nothing.
I’ll come back to prove that in greater depth, I’m just sayin’ it’s clear where this throw down is going given your inability to give an articulate response to a simple challenge. Which I’ll repeat once again;
I challenge you to come up with ONE EXAMPLE of a faulty economic argument by me, and your reasoning why it’s faulty.
Now why should that be so hard for you to do?
Deflection. All you got. Age of the takes-down of your errors does not make them less right. I just listed 5 summarized points of yours that are in error.
Surely you aren’t illiterate?
Let me tell you how this works. You didn’t list 5 examples of me being wrong: you wrote, and I quote you:
“[Keynes] may be the lead in to discuss why Keynesianism is wrong:
1) Insistence that debt is irrelevant
2) Insistence that inflation is irrelevant
3) Insistence that economies can be controlled
4) Insistence that economies can be ‘stimulated’ (they can, but only temporarily and it’s utility doesn’t last, because printing dollars doesn’t create VALUE – the actual source of economic stimulation)
5) Insistence that incentivizing non-production will lead to less non-productive people.
What you’ve listed here are five statements that YOU claim that KEYNES MAKES. I never made any of them. If you want to quote me specifically making those claims, go look it up and cite it. (Keynes can defend himself).
Here – since you apparently need to be led by the hand, let me help you out. Here are two arguments I HAVE made:
1. The recent CBO report does NOT claim the economy will lose 2.5 million jobs because of Obamacare.
2. Printing money in the last few years predictably did not lead to inflation.
Care to rebut them? Over to you. Refute me.
Those are significant real statements I have made; you don’t need to make up stuff about my saying flatly “debt is irrelevant” or “incentivizing non production will lead to less non-productive people.”
Get real.
Instistence that debt is irrelevant and also here
Insistence that inflation is irrelevent, and here, and , and here
Insistence that stimulus works
Insistence that incentivizing non-production will lead to more productive people.
“Let me tell you how this works.”
Alright smart ass, I know how “this works”, I’ve done “this” here for awhile now. I know full well how to take you smug leftists behind the woodshed and spank you with the logic bat.
“You didn’t list 5 examples of me being wrong: you wrote, and I quote you:
“[Keynes] may be the lead in to discuss why Keynesianism is wrong:”
Yeah, that was poor poor formatting on my part. Having kept the paragraph together as I thought I had on the iphone, that would have indicated that those 5 ideas are ideas you have pushed and a separate but related thought that I don’t need to call you a Keynesian to disprove you, but that mentioning your ideals are Keynesian leads to a discussion on why they are wrong.
If you don’t see a problem with the debt, and can’t see the inherent problem in debt spending, then you’ve drank the koolaid too deeply. I know the mysterious debt is one of the items that is shrugged off as irrelevant, but there is no argument that isn’t built around willful ignorance that thinks the debt is great.
Inflation, we’ve been told is a necessary evil to stave off unemployment. Only it isn’t. If you go back and review history, inflation was practically non-existant until debt spending to ‘stimulate’ or otherwise manipulate the economy became a practice. Yet, those n
free market times reflected hign levels of liberty, social mobility and general prosperity across the board.
Stimulus fails time and again except in localized industries and even then for only short durations. The economy is driven by demand, demand is created by perceived value. if perceived value does not exist, pumping money into the economy does nothing but temporary boosts, but the natural demand creation forces are still not creating demand, so the cycle of value doesn’t exist — and it is demand and value that push the economy. Demand is not a pocketful of dollars available to spend. Each year as inflation reduces the buying power of each dollar, ability to act on demand reduces. That is what stagnates the economy.
Get real.
Again. 6th time now. Show me ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of my arguing a point that you think is economically wrong, and explain why.
You have yet to do so.
The closest you can come is to say, “If you don’t see a problem with the debt, and can’t see the inherent problem in debt spending, then you’ve drank the koolaid too deeply.”
That is not an example. It’s a hypothetical, unconnected to reality. Not only that, but it’s false.
I NEVER SAID there’s “no problem with debt.” I NEVER SAID “debt is irrelevant.” I NEVER SAID “inflation is irrelevant.” I never said anything of the kind, and I defy you to point to any place where I did. POINT IT OUT. Until you do, you’re just pissing in the wind with all your pontificating.
The links you provide are links to entire blogposts and comment threads. Nowhere do you cite anything specific I’ve said to back up your reckless assertions. After 6 attempts to slither out, it’s obvious you don’t have anything specific.
You claim to know “how this works,” but you then equate ‘how it works” with “taking you smug leftists behind the woodshed and spanking you with the logic bat.”
Your “logic bat,” my friend, is imaginary – you display no evidence. No logic. Your “spanking” is all in your fevered comic-book addled mind.
It’s very simple: I dare you to cite ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE of an economic claim I have made, and why it is wrong. I dare you. ONE EXAMPLE. Stop lecturing against imaginary strawmen – show me ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE to back up your original claim.
Here’s what you do, continually. Make wild assertions, drowning in adjectives and metaphors, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. When I call you on it your bullshit, all you’ve done is continue to bluster.
You made a specific assertion, friend. Back it up. ONE SINGLE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING I SAID. Where is it?
It’s obvious by now to anyone who might care to read all this (whom, I can’t imagine) that you’ve got nothing.
Texagg04 of February 12, 2014 at 10:35 am wrote “… printing dollars doesn’t create VALUE …”.
Actually, it depends on what the printed money was used for. Sometimes, there may actually be genuine investment opportunities for it rather than the more usual acquiring of existing assets, which is just a wealth transfer. In the East Indies, the Dutch used their gains from depreciating the copper coinage (along with other things) to help set up a revenue yielding commercial enterprise at locals’ expense. The locals got little if anything out of it, of course, but the fact remains that the depreciation was applied to wealth creation (for the Dutch).
So, if Nancy Lane were to go back to Forever Broadcasting and present her estranged husband’s severed head, would Forever Broadcasting have an ethical obligation to give her her job back, since the “risk its business, the health and safety of its employees, and expensive lawsuits for the benefit” was terminated?
Talking about value, which goes hand in hand with demand… not the supply of money or clever (and anti free market) practices of currency manipulation.
Without demand, a force that can ONLY occur naturally, no value exists. You can piss as much money into a system as you want, but without demand, the money does nothing, except temporary boosts. The money itself does not create value or demand.
Your anecdote of dirty financial tricks doesn’t debunk my Value assertion.
It’s a gauntlet sighting!! All RIGHT!!!
Red Warrior needs food badly…
Wait, wrong gauntlet.
Today’s news provides another interesting example of the application of the “other employees’ right to safety” argument.
Under right-wing political pressure, Penguin Publishing of India has agreed to withdraw from publication an American-authored book about Hinduism.
Publisher Penguin defended its right to stop publication by saying, “We also have a moral responsibility to protect our employees against threats and harassment where we can.”
Full article at
What if any should be the limits of the “protection of other employees” argument?
Cleverly, Chuck makes it sound like it was folks like Newt who got the book pulled…
This “right wing” pressure is from folks in India. Not that such a thing is an important distinction for Chuck…
Your jingoist paranoia is acting up again.
-You missed the part where I said the company was “Penguin Publishing of India.”
-In fact, you missed where the entire story was about India.
-The term “right wing” has currency outside America.
-The article was published in the Asia Pacific section of the newspaper.
Only in your fevered mind did the comment have anything to do with Newt Gingrich or American politics. I was using it to illustrate a point about a particular ethical argument – that the argument per se has limitations.
Go back to your cage.
you must’ve missed this
Texagg, you’re right I did miss it. Thanks for pointing it out, and for actually responding to the challenge to cite ONE EXAMPLE of where I ostensibly did bad economics, and your proof as to why it’s wrong.
At least you tried to give a specific example; thanks for that. Your answer failed miserably, but at least you tried. Let me be specific.
The example of my economic failure that you chose was, in my words, ”debt perfectly well CAN increase forever, and as long as it grows at a lower rate than GDP it’s not a big deal…”
First, let me state clearly my proposition; then let me debunk your supposed critique of it.
Assume a particular ratio of debt to GDP – let’s just pick 70%, but any number you like will work. Now assume that debt grows at a rate of 3% – and that GDP grows at a rate of 4%. Here’s how the math plays out, for a few years:
Year 1 Debt $70 GDP $100 Debt:GDP = 70.0%
Year 2 Debt $72.1 GDP $104 Debt:GDP = 69.3%
Year 3 Debt $74.3 GDP $108.2 Debt:GDP = 68.7%
Year 4 Debt $76.5 GDP $112.5 Debt:GDP = 68.0%
Year 5 Debt $78.8 GDP $117.0 Debt:GDP = 67.4%
So – if GDP grows faster than debt, the debt ratio declines, getting smaller every year. The further out you go, the closer to zero debt becomes as a proportion of GDP.
That’s the argument I made – that is not the absolute level of debt that matters, but that the relative level of debt, particularly debt to GDP, that is of consequence. I don’t know of anyone who would argue against that.
Oh wait, you would. So let’s examine your argument as to why my point is economically false. You make several arguments:
1. You say “DEBT IS BAD. It’s pretty self-evident.” What?! Murder is bad, that’s pretty self-evident, but do you SERIOUSLY want to claim that the only good debt is zero debt? How do you propose to fund aircraft carriers? To build roads? The only countries in the world with zero debt tend to be oil dictatorships. The rest of the civilized world views debt, both public and private, as a valuable tool for financing growth. If you’re going to claim that it’s self-evidently true that debt is bad, then all I have to do to contradict you is to point out I disagree. Here’s where you might want to cite SOME economist with some degree of expertise to support your claim that “Debt is Bad.” I know of none.
2. Then you say “if we continue on this path…” then you get incoherent. You appear to be claiming that even double digit growth can never pay down our debt. That’s simply not true.
First of all, you may want to notice that our debt growth has already declined considerably in the last few years – down to almost zero last year. The debt:GDP ratio is set to decline this year and for some years to come. And yet you actually say “mathematically this can never be paid off..”
First of all, there’s nothing mathematically certain about that, but it would be as stupid to pay it off as it would be for a corporation to exist solely on equity, forgoing the advantages of managing debt. Particularly at a time when debt is so cheap (i.e. interest rates low), the stupid thing for either a company or a government would be to pay down expensive debt when it can be refinanced for a permanent net saving.
Your argument then goes on to moral rot, and while we can argue about the morality inherent in economics (I suspect we both agree it’s relevant), I think it’s outside the range of our little bet.
To sum up: you chose to say that my claim that “debt is irrelevant as long as it’s declining relative to GDP” is economically wrong, or in some way flawed. Your counter-arguments amounted to “all debt is bad,” and “it could mathematically never be paid down.” The first argument is silly and unsupported by any respectable economist; the second is just mathematically wrong.
If you’ve got something better, bring it on, but I think 98% of economists out there (and I’m being conservative) will agree that
a) the level of debt matters, and
b) there’s nothing magically desirable about zero debt; to the contrary.
I anticipated a double down response, rife with incompetence. You didn’t disappoint me.
Preliminary and Elementary Matters
“Thanks for pointing it out, and for actually responding to the challenge to cite ONE EXAMPLE of where I ostensibly did bad economics, and your proof as to why it’s wrong” -charlesgreen
You have been answered exactly as many times as you asked the question. To be clear, it was your obtuse pigheadedness that led you to be juvenile and pretend no answers were given. For further repetition, I actually cited several examples, and then explained several in detail. Which you have conveniently ignored. Evidence that you go through life with your head in the clouds or up a dark hole… one or the other.
Back to your wishful thinking
Your assertion “as long as debt increases slower than GDP, why wouldn’t we spend like crazy” is in the context of you actually thinking that debt is increasing slower than GDP. So we can discuss it in terms of real numbers, not the imaginary numbers you invented to ‘prove’ your point.
Historic GDP Data from Measuring Worth,
historic Census Data from the US census (allows us to normalize data per capita),
historic Consumer Price Index (allows for inflation adjustments)
and historic debt data from the extremely exhaustively researched US Government Spending and it’s sister sites,
allows us to put together an accurate picture of what is really going on (it isn’t pretty and in fact, the adjusted and normalized numbers make it prettier than it would look).
All Numbers are comparisons after adjustment for inflation AND normalized per capita:
Year GDP Growth Debt Growth
1960 0.86% -1.97%
1961 1.29% -1.60%
1962 4.74% 0.93%
1963 2.93% -0.08%
1964 4.66% -0.74%
1965 5.39% -0.89%
1966 5.12% -2.23%
1967 1.62% -0.39%
1968 3.61% 2.58%
1969 1.39% -7.05%
1970 -1.56% -2.82%
1971 2.91% 1.59%
1972 5.13% 2.25%
1973 3.80% -0.32%
1974 -3.47% -7.61%
1975 -1.14% 1.53%
1976 4.00% 8.58%
1977 3.22% 4.35%
1978 3.86% 1.07%
1979 -0.67% -5.01%
1980 -5.19% -4.45%
1981 0.68% -1.78%
1982 -2.80% 6.67%
1983 4.38% 15.75%
1984 5.47% 8.32%
1985 2.94% 11.16%
1986 2.65% 13.42%
1987 1.44% 5.77%
1988 2.66% 5.54%
1989 1.84% 4.25%
1990 -0.62% 5.13%
1991 -2.25% 6.25%
1992 1.48% 6.56%
1993 0.89% 4.29%
1994 2.26% 2.71%
1995 0.74% 1.81%
1996 1.43% 1.06%
1997 2.58% 0.02%
1998 2.75% -0.71%
1999 2.83% -1.06%
2000 1.78% -3.99%
2001 -0.26% -0.98%
2002 1.04% 5.04%
2003 1.82% 5.92%
2004 3.17% 5.25%
2005 2.47% 3.26%
2006 1.84% 2.89%
2007 0.92% 2.29%
2008 -2.74% 6.75%
2009 -2.34% 18.58%
2010 1.41% 11.36%
2011 -0.42% 4.65%
2012 1.37% 5.39%
You’ll note, for predictive purposes, that in the past 40 years, we’ve only had 6 years where GDP growth has outstripped debt growth. There is NO REASON to believe that the Federal government is going to decrease spending compared to GDP growth (especially given the general attitude of today’s voting population, which consists of “government should pay for more stuff I want”, and with continued emphasis on programs that incentivize non-working). Your belief is fanciful and dumb.
1. Calm down wild eyed screamer. I’ve said debt is bad. Because it is. I’ve not said it isn’t necessary at times.
“If you’re going to claim that it’s self-evidently true that debt is bad, then all I have to do to contradict you is to point out I disagree.”-charlesgreen”
That is actually logically fallacious, because you don’t see something that is self-evident, doesn’t mean it isn’t self-evident, only that you lack discernment or have a grossly upside down set of values.
The rest of your #1 is a silly non-sequitur pushing strawman, since saying “Debt is Bad” does not equate to saying “Debt is unnecessary at times”.
2. You claim my argument is incoherent. I suspect it’s mostly because you don’t like that it shows the dangers of debt, there is also a possibility that you are illiterate, but I’ll assume the former.
Interest payments alone will be $1 Trillion by 2020
by 2020, Interest Payments will be greater than the deficit We’ll be going into further debt, to pay ONLY the interest on the existing debt.
3. Conveniently disregard the historical dangers of wild debt and the cultural dangers of it as well. I know those are thorns in the side of your “KEEP SPENDING LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS” mindset.
But really, it just shows your flippant ignorance.
In Summary
You doubled down on already disproven arguments. You failed to address in detail the sound rebuttals of your “Spend Money We Don’t have and our Grandchildren won’t even have” mentality.
You additionally failed to address any of the other citations of your economic folly.
In short, you’ve failed. But, I’m sure with a little research, discernment, common sense, and using your brain, you can realize your errors.
This time I’m going to resist emulating your penchant for obscenities and insults. I’ll just stick to facts.
I’ve noticed a tendency in your comments. It is to switch arguments when you’re losing. This is a great example.
I asked you to pick one of my arguments and prove it wrong. You finally specified one: my claim that you could increase debt forever as long as the underlying GDP grew at a faster rate.
My argument was in the form If X, Then Y. You chose to claim that the “if” clause is not the case, which completely ignores the argument I set forth, and is a logical irrelevance.
Here’s how that sounds in another context:
Me: If it doesn’t snow, I won’t need my snow shovel.
You: IT IS SNOWING! AND YOU NEED YOUR SHOVEL! YOU LIED!
Do you see the fallacy? If you want to attack my argument, you’d have to prove that more debt was bad EVEN IF the GDP growth rate was higher.
You did no such thing. You chose to say, “AH HA, looky here – debt has been growing for 40 years faster than GDP, in most years it’s debt that grows more, not GDP, AH HA YOU’RE WRONG.”
To which I say – do you walk to school or carry your lunch? Answer my point, don’t make an entirely irrelevant one.
Your data has nothing to do with my point. You did not address, nor therefore disprove, my point. You simply chose to change the subject.
AND – as to the subject you changed to. I never said, not for a moment, that GDP has historically grown more than debt. You are absolutely correct in your data (massively irrelevant, but absolutely correct). I completely agree, and never disagreed.
But now that you mention it – not only has the US debt increased more than the GDP over the last 40 years, but I’ll bet you that’s true of about 95% of all countries over the same time frame. And if you want to stretch it to 100 years, I’ll raise the odds to 100%
WHAT’S YOUR POINT? The trajectory of history has been to incur larger governments, with concomitant larger debt. (The debt part is hardly surprising – who wants to pay for aircraft carriers from quarterly tax assessments).
The point you should address is WHY, for whatever reason, you think the level of debt to GDP in the US in the early 2nd millennium is uniquely, or specially, or historically, wrong.
As it is, all you’ve said is “as civilization progresses, governments have gotten bigger, and they engage in debt financing.”
Yeah? And so what? What’s your point?
But to reiterate the first point. You didn’t disprove my argument, you attempted to dodge it by changing the question.
And it didn’t work.
Wow, I think I made it through with no obscenities. And, though I’m clearly speaking very directly and pointedly, I don’t think I resorted to insults either.
Preliminary and Elementary Matters
“This time I’m going to resist emulating your penchant for obscenities and insults. I’ll just stick to facts.”-charlesgreen
My penchant for obscenities? Are you hallucinating? Kindly peruse for me the last time I used an obscenity, and then the time before, you’ll note they are weeks and months in dispersal. Hardly a penchant. You may be confusing me with Ablative, easily understandable as most of your arguments come from a greatly confused world-view.
And my policy of insults is follow the tone established by others OR after someone has clearly demonstrated themselves worthy of a moniker that sounds insulting, they receive it.
You’ll note the snark and rudeness in this discussion began with you. I only followed suit and would prefer discussions remain civil.
Your Claimed Assertion
If X, then Y.
X = Level of GDP increases faster than Level of Debt
Y = Level of Debt is irrelevant
You are claiming to have made this assertion. You didn’t; you see, context matters. The original discussion was in the context of current events, in which you claimed economic conditions were right for ‘spending out the wazoo’ with no worries about the relationship to GDP and Debt. I demonstrated to you, with simple mathematics (which don’t lie), that those economic conditions do not exist.
I know you can’t avoid math, so you have to play dodging games like your clumsy attempt at explaining all the errors people can make with the rule of inference: Modus Ponens (I’ll give a class at the end of this post). Since I didn’t make that error, you’re wrong there.
Since my rebuttal WAS on point and WAS relevant, the middle section of recent reply was mostly a waste of your time, but thanks for trying.
The Art of Tripling Down, by Charles Green
“But now that you mention it – not only has the US debt increased more than the GDP over the last 40 years, but I’ll bet you that’s true of about 95% of all countries over the same time frame. And if you want to stretch it to 100 years, I’ll raise the odds to 100%”
Everybody does it. Rationalization #1 (the Golden Rationalization)
“WHAT’S YOUR POINT? The trajectory of history has been to incur larger governments, with concomitant larger debt. (The debt part is hardly surprising – who wants to pay for aircraft carriers from quarterly tax assessments).”
Do we need to run down the history lesson again about what happens with rampant debt and the huge divide between Creditors and the rest of the people? Do we? Summary: It ends in collapse of the particular community, followed by centuries of clawing out of despotism. Do we need to peruse history as well about incurring larger governments? Maybe just a quick jump into the mid-20th century?
I’ve already given a summary of this once (which you ignored), but it does rebut you, which I imagine you will continue to ignore.
Gads you are dense, you’ve taken the “right side of history argument” and made it “hell, history is gonna happen anyway, let’s enjoy it!” (kind of like that quote by Clayton Williams).
Our nation was built on the idea that government could be checked in size and that we could resist the corrupting influences of collected power. That you seem hell bent on being comfortable with letting that system collapse is telling of Leftist mentalities.
Strawmen
“As it is, all you’ve said is “as civilization progresses, governments have gotten bigger, and they engage in debt financing.” -charlesgreen
Actually, I didn’t say that.
Conclusion
Since you failed to see how disproven you were, you claimed a defense that both required pulling a conversation out of context AND involving an error of interpreting and applying Modus Ponens, since you then brought up a further defense that had already been debunked prior, then you’ve engaged in strawmen and countless dodges, I really don’t see an ability to break you of the kool-aid you’ve drank. It just tastes to good and you’ll rationalize all logic away to keep drinking.
Enjoy the utter blindness with which you maintain your world-view. I’m done with your ignorance on this topic.
Oops! the brief and extremely summarized class I promised:
Modus Ponens
Modus Ponens is the most basic Rule of Inference.
If X, then Y
X
Therefore Y
If it is snowing, then I need my shovel.
It is snowing.
Therefore I need my shovel.
This can be misinterpreted several ways:
Firstly, there are conversational misinterpretations, such as:
If X, then Y = If not X, then not Y. (But they are not equivalent, this the error of the inverse conditional and related to the Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.)
If would be like someone saying, it isn’t snowing, therefore you do not need your shovel. Which isn’t necessarily true, perhaps you need your shovel to dig your flowerbed. The statement relies only on the condition of snow. If assessing the presence of snow is not in the initial conditions, then no other statements can be assumed factual.
If X, then Y = If Y, then X. (This as well is NOT equivalent, and known as a biconditional error and related to the Fallacy of Denying the Consequent)
It would be like someone saying, you need your shovel, it must be snowing. Which again isn’t necessarily true, because it doesn’t start from assessing the presence of snow.
You attempted I think above to claim I Denied the Antecedent, but then explained it as though I was Denying the Consequent… I think… it was a rather incoherent exposition.
Interesting comments. However, it seems to me that we have failed to be an ethical society when we allow a terrorist, such as the estranged husband in this case, to win.
Because as a society we no longer endorse the kind of severe consequences for the husband’s behavior that would deter his behavior.
This society now shuns violence and chivalry otherwise this problem would have already been solved.
You’re still talking about justifiable, mad dog homicide, aren’t you? Yes, Jack Reacher has a solution. Ring! “Hi! I’m coming by to kill you unless you move to Borneo in 12 hours. Which side of your head would you like to have caved in?”
If the man is making violent threats that are credible enough to warrant firing the woman in order to prevent the violence from happening at work and injuring others, then I would easily classify it as self defense.
And yes. Sometimes you do have to put down a mad dog, before it injures or kills some innocent.
You do realize this is essentially the argument POTUS is using to justify drone-killing citizens abroad. In both cases, the laws and the Constitution do not support this conduct.
I consider threats from a guy’s mouth to be a trustworthy means of deciding if a guy is a threat.
I give no such credit to this – or any – administration.
Also, I’m not suggesting we blow up a wedding party to get the guy. If Obama was willing to a) show absolute proof the targeted citizen was stating the intention to blow up a people or engage in some other form of attack, b) show that the citizen was actually capable of following through with the stated intention and c) send someone to do it in a manner that no one else was harmed, then I would be willing to entertain the the discussion.
Yes, it does, in this case. He is a violent threat.
there is no legal duty to appease.
The Ex-husband’s actions don’t rise to that level yet. But where the hell are the men around this woman? None at work? Family? Friends? Friend of a friend? It doesn’t take much to counter this crap, just for a guy to step up and tell him to knock it off and be willing to stand up when he doesn’t. Hell my wife has physically confronted a guy that was going much farther than this. Of course once she did several guys realized they were shirking their responsibility as men and took care of the matter.
I’m not exactly saying the guy should just be shot in the face (though if he shows up around her with a gun or some other kind of weapon, just remember the saying “two to the head, make sure their dead”)…
But I would like to help facilitate a deep and meaningful conversation between his kneecaps and a length of pipe.
That doesn’t make me a bad person, does it?
No, that doesn’t make you a bad person, it’s just evidence of it (which might be offset by other evidence pointing the other way, for all I know).
So if the man’s threats are credible enough for the woman’s job to ethically fire her, but not credible enough for decisive action to be taken… what, then, would be the woman’s next move?
Because I’m not going to say that I don’t understand the ethics behind the firing, but I refuse to accept the idea that “Well, you marrried a guy who turned out to be a psycho. That was your fuckup, now you can never have a job again because he’ll make threats, but not ever quite move enough to be stopped. Have fun in the shelter” is an acceptable outcome.
It’s a problem…we don’t have pre-crime laws, and speech is seldom a crime in itself. The new harassment and anti-stalking laws help, but are narrowly construed. I was on duty once at the complaint desk of the DC DA’s office where citizens called in threats from neighbors, exes and boyfriends. Usually all I could do was tell them that until the threats turned into genuine attacks, there was nothing we could do. And sometimes, the old hands told me, the first attack is deadly. “Then you feel really bad. Good luck.”
Not that any of that negates the company’s duty to its other employees, or customers if they are actually present and liable to be involved in a lunatic’s attack. It’s just an overall disagreeable situation, and I don’t think that more speech limits or precrime laws are the way to fix it either- that’s killing a fly with a sledgehammer, and also the fly is on your face.
One might suggest that if we went the Switzerland route of arming and *PROPERLY TRAINING* (highlighted for emphasis) all of our law-abiding citizens, his so-called threats might be a bit less credible.
Not that any of that negates the company’s duty to its other employees, or customers if they are actually present and liable to be involved in a lunatic’s attack. It’s just an overall disagreeable situation, and I don’t think that more speech limits or precrime laws are the way to fix it either- that’s killing a fly with a sledgehammer, and also the fly is on your face.
One might suggest that if we went the Switzerland route of arming and *PROPERLY TRAINING* (highlighted for emphasis) all of our law-abiding citizens, his so-called threats might be a bit less credible.
I am with you here.
I am with you here. I agree
Well said.
Bystander intervention, Male relatives, friends. Her confronting him head on, with support of a male friend or two who are willing to get involved.
This is her issue to solve, that doesn’t mean she has to do it alone, she just needs to take action to resolve it. The status with the Ex not going far enough for the law to engage but far enough to impact her life needs to change, by direct confrontation it may shift it where he will make a wrong move, having those male friends standing by comes to play here, or he will realize the juice is not worth the squeeze anymore and stop.
You do realize that by actually showing up with muscle in tow, she runs the risk of putting herself on the wrong side of the law? I like fantasizing about punching evil in the face as much as the next guy, but you can’t just go give in-person threats of violence without crossing the line yourself.
You do realize that by actually showing up with muscle in tow, she runs the risk of putting herself on the wrong side of the law? I like fantasizing about punching evil in the face as much as the next guy, but you can’t just go give in-person threats of violence without crossing the line yourself.
You assume too much, even the simplest form of conflict resolution starts with the deciding on avoidance or engagement. Avoidance leads to additional conflict, engagement starts the path to resolution. Engaging an aggressive Ex without protection is stupid, that is why women that have an aggressive Ex don’t do it. By having the muscle in tow she is not breaking any law, anywhere. Where did I say she was to go threaten him with violence? Even if she stated the muscle she brought was there explicitly to protect her it is not a threat. It does convey that attacking her will result in an aggressive action in response, again not a threat. This allows for dialog, even if the dialog is not productive it still usually results in domination which also can lead to resolution. If the attack is made by the Ex she still has changed the status and the police can act. The muscle is not there to provide retaliation but protection, every time I have seen this process become physical it has been the Ex taken away in cuffs not the muscle, and I have seen this more than a few times and have been involved in several. The vast majority of times it never comes down to a physical altercation, the engagement itself, regardless of how productive the dialog is ends the situation.
If you read my “direct confrontation” as meaning threatening the Ex with violence I apologize for my “you assume too much”. My use is in the sense that the situation is already hostile and engaging the Ex directly is confrontational, not to be confused with “you harass her again I am going to break your kneecaps”.
Maybe I’m wrong, I’ll admit it, but your posts have “tough guy” written all over them. Your garden variety jerk might be spooked off by a simple show of “I’m not gonna take it any more” but by the time someone is calling in credible threats to an employer things don’t just end simply. I understand the appeal in bringing in someone tall dark and silent to mutter “Let the lady be” but it’s not realistic.
You say that such a confrontation will “end in domination,” but real people aren’t movie villains that snarl “curses, foiled again” and hide in the shadows. Real people, real assholes, just wait til the immediate confrontation is over and go back to business. He’s already proved he’s at least a bit canny, in that he hasn’t done anything to her to get him arrested. What makes you think he’ll suddenly be either cowed into permanent withdrawal or provoked into actionable assault, rather than just continuing his low-level threats and harassment while trying not only to spook her employers but also to bait her friends into taking a swing at him and ending up in jail?
And if he pressed charges after a friend takes a swing at him, there would be discovery…
Maybe I’m wrong, I’ll admit it, but your posts have “tough guy” written all over them. Your garden variety jerk might be spooked off by a simple show of “I’m not gonna take it any more” but by the time someone is calling in credible threats to an employer things don’t just end simply. I understand the appeal in bringing in someone tall dark and silent to mutter “Let the lady be” but it’s not realistic.
Maybe because I am a tough guy, but more to the point so what? Most of these guys who target women are your garden variety jerk and they are spooked off when faced with force. What is not realistic is to expect these guys to just get bored and stop without changing the dynamic. I understand the appeal of not getting involved, of not taking a stand and putting yourself at risk, that is fine for some but when your sister or friend has to deal with this I hope someone like me and not you is willing to get involved and help them out. There is no magic here, these are not super villains and not worthy of hiding in the closet hoping they go away.
You say that such a confrontation will “end in domination,” but real people aren’t movie villains that snarl “curses, foiled again” and hide in the shadows. Real people, real assholes, just wait til the immediate confrontation is over and go back to business. He’s already proved he’s at least a bit canny, in that he hasn’t done anything to her to get him arrested. What makes you think he’ll suddenly be either cowed into permanent withdrawal or provoked into actionable assault, rather than just continuing his low-level threats and harassment while trying not only to spook her employers but also to bait her friends into taking a swing at him and ending up in jail?
People like you are why so many of these assholes continue their shit, grow a backbone and be a damn man. If the guy is bigger and meaner then you bring a friend, it is not that hard, this is not conjecture, go find yourself a man and ask him if he has ever stood up for someone who couldn’t do it themselves and how they did it, then ask him to teach you.
Let’s use the Terminator as an example. Sarah Connor is being hunter. We see, several times, massive collateral death when the Terminator arrives where Sarah is. If she comes and knock on the door of my establishment for refuge with T on her Trail, is it a a symptom of a societal flaw to say, “If I thought I had a prayer of saving you, I would. As it is, your presence risks the lives of everyone here, mine included. Even in, by some miracle, everyone survives and he just shoots up the place, I’m out of business. Good luck, but go away.”?
Now, if the owners of the establishment AND everyone in the establishment agrees to accept the risk in Sarah’s interests, fine. But they have no ethical obligation to agree.
It’s fascinating reading the comments on the June post, especially noting conversants then who have been MIA from the wars here for quite a while. Whither jj, Ed Carney, Kate, KP, Carl Avery, Zanshin, Other Bill, BytheFarmstead?
And more to the point, where the fuck was I?
Wondered about that, too. So you’re on board, and all of them are gone. Net gain, say you?
Saving for some, I would never make such a claim.
Though some of the names I don’t recall as being frequent. Were they?
I think you were a noob then.
Nah, I go back way further than June…
Then you drove them away, then….
Easily fixed, that. Shoot them an email.
I perused that argument as well to see what we may have to rehash here. Many faces missing.
I think a more productive discussion would be what to do with crazy stalkers (if you can’t just run out and shoot them in the groin); if it gets to the point where even outside parties with no real interest in the well-being of the person being stalked get concerned, I think we are getting towards the territory of certain types of stalking (one combined with actual death threats and physical aggression like tire slashing at that) being worth 25-to-life.
Also, this may be a case which makes a good argument for *trained* and organized community militias (regardless of what impressions Martin-Zimmerman case might have given you).
Also, has anyone checked whether this type of capitulation might or might not have simply encouraged stalkers to step up their game? Of course, the company is not obligated to fight stalking anymore than Japan is obligated to take an aggressive stance on Russian authoritarianism, but I’m curious to see what type of approach might be better on a macro-level.
Ultimately, though, this is the sort of problem that has to be dealt with at a lower level than the company one in order to nip it in the bud before it gets this bad.
Incidents like this are why Robert B. Parker, Robert Tannenbaum and Lee Child among many others are best selling authors. In a just world people like Mr. Lane would be either dead or recovering from a severe beating and everyone would agree that he got what he richly deserved. Simple solutions for simple pathologies. Rid the body of what ailes it etc.
It’s on a much smaller scale, but I used to be a bouncer- dragging people out the doors if they wanted to fight was part of the job. Then I saw a guy getting disgustingly handsy with a girl who didn’t want him to, and by the time I waded over he had shockingly- SHOCKINGLY- fallen on the floor and had a bloody nose. He must have slipped, and the guy next to him with the knuckle bruises must have been a mechanic drinking off his knuckle-bruising workday. Because if he threw a punch I’d have had to kick him out…
The problem I have with situations such as here with Nancy Lane is there is no reason for this situation to result in an ethical dilemma or “Zero Sum”. I, as well as few others here recommend what can only be labeled as a chivalristic response. Now we are not talking the aristocratic, medieval ethos but more of a modernization of the gentlemanly behavior exhibited of those of the greatest generation without the bigotry or homophobia. With the feminization of our society it is incredibly hard to find the line between “modern” chivalry and misogyny, or at least feminism’s liberal application of the term.
The disparity of messages such as the Violence Against Women Act extension or “War on Women” rhetoric with the push for women in direct combat positions and Hollywood’s presentation of the indestructible female hero who takes on a pack muscular men and beats them down confuses things further. When reality strikes such as the Marine Corps decision to ditch requiring women to do pullups as are required of the men the message that is presented is not an admission that men and women are different but that the requirement itself is stupid and misogynistic. The bottom line is there is a difference between men and women, and men are generally better suited to step in when a woman is under physical threat by a man to provide a counter.
A gun works well as an equalizer too but that is a whole other discussion.
Organizations such as the Boy Scouts, where masculinity and male attributes are focused and given a productive purpose for the benefit of society, provide a useful example of the traits that should be promoted in the male population of society. The idea of not taking action and being a bystander to an injustice or threat against someone is counter to their creed, and this is not misogynistic, but is recognizing a duty to act and that due to biology there is a good chance should the situation result in violence that generally a man will fare better in such then a women.
Taking action does not always mean direct confrontation; many of these situations escalate much farther then what is needed partly due to the target of the aggression being fearful from the start to taking any action that may result angering their tormentor. Having a man recognize the problem and be willing to get involved provides that support and safety the target needs to resolve the issue from the start.
Obviously a woman stepping up and getting involved can provide some of the same benefits but a man is still generally better suited if that aggression shifts to them. So with all that said with Nancy Lane’s dilemma if when all this started, or even when the issues started at work someone decided to get involved, to be a witness to the confrontations and harassment, to take the time to walk her to her car, to be a visible deterrent, demonstrate that she was not alone and helpless, that any direct confrontation would involve more than just her, the risk of taking action against her increases making her a much less attractive target for aggression. It additionally demonstrates positive action to address the situation, making the employer more likely to give the situation time to resolve.
Society has shifted reliance on police, social workers and the like, and those who do not have problems such as Nancy have a gained a false sense of security because they are promoted as the champions of the weak and unfortunate, when in reality they are the cleanup crew. Look at many small towns, generally in areas where personal responsibility and religion are not dirty words, you still see it. The police forces are often small and unobtrusive, not due to lack means but lack of need. Many of those communities “police” their own, not vigilantism, they get involved immediately when problems arise, reducing severity and alleviating the need for officer involvement. They identify bad behavior and are willing to call it out, woman and men, woman don’t have to fear confronting a man about bad behavior, they know if things escalate another man will step in, not because the man stepping in hates women or he thinks he is a superior human being but because generally biology favors men with strength and this has been recognized throughout the ages and reflected through chivalry. Even a man who targets women with his aggression usually can recognize this fact of biology and it often is enough to deter that aggressor. This is not an unerring solution, but it is not one which should be shunned and demeaned but promoted.
Except I think the whole male/female dynamic is only secondary to the case. I would assume that if a man’s ex-wife started making threats to his job, he would be fired for exactly the same reasons that the woman was in this case.
At a secondary level it wouldn’t be the same- good luck convincing the police you’re scared of a woman, for one- but the ethics issue presented is universal independent of whether a male ex threatens a female’s place of employ, the situation is inverted, or a same-sex ex is the one making the threats.
I don’t think it is, nor does history support your conclusion. I agree that if the threats were equal, or the perception of them was, then you would have a point. Active shooters, hostage takers, bombers and arsonist perpetrators are predominantly male, so much so that I doubt that anyone, if the genders were reversed, would seriously consider those types of violent acts I listed as true threats if the aggressor was the women.
I think you’re neglecting rate- men may be more likely to do the actual act, but they’re also more likely to threaten. If we saw roughly equal rates of people threatening businesses with violence, but predominantly men actually carrying them out, then you’d have a safer expectation that a woman’s threats were less credible. If 99% of threats are from men, and 99% of actions are by men, then a woman’s threat is just as likely to be carried out.
That’s not to say that no gung-ho manly man manager wouldn’t say “ah, that’s just a woman’s threat, ignore it” but I don’t see a company of any size taking on the added liability risk of ignoring a threat just because a woman gave it.
This is a Comment of the Day, Steven, as soon as I have a chance to post it. Thoughtful and provocative. Thanks.
So, if Nancy Lane were to go back to Forever Broadcasting and present her estranged husband’s severed head, would Forever Broadcasting have an ethical obligation to give her her job back, since the “risk its business, the health and safety of its employees, and expensive lawsuits for the benefit” was terminated?