On Apr 13, 2005, at 8:20 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:09:30 -0400, JDG wrote
On the other hand, if a given amount of government spending on the war has greater benefits to the country than costs, once again, by all means that spending should be undertaken.
As I think about this, I'm having a hard time applying cost-benefit analysis
to war at all. The costs are not quantifiable and benefits aren't very
predictable (which is to say, I suppose, that a risk assessment is needed,
which I assume is non-controversial on the face of it). Certainly the money
costs are, although there are plenty of ways to count. But the cost in terms
of the impact of the war on people is incalculable, I suspect.
That's the problem I have with applying economics as well. (Being an atheist doesn't mean I can't factor ethical, personal or human costs, after all.)
I think that if we, as a nation, are concerned only with the *financial* costs of a war, we're so far off track that it's time for a thorough philosophical housecleaning.
(The abortion question is telling. We have politicians braying about "erring on the side of life" when a hunk of formerly-human tissue is involved, but apparently willing to make whatever mistakes are politically expedient when discussing bombing nations that didn't attack us.)
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
