Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 April 15

= April 15 =

microeconomics solution to private suit problem of guantanamo
I saw this analysis of why guantanamo prisonners wouldn't be released:

"If the prisoners are ever released without being charged or tried (which won't happen because there's no evidence), they can each file a civil suit against the U.S. Government, each worth potentially hundreds of millions. I think this plays a role as well."

And the agreement by someone, "It's the equivalent of keeping the neighbor's daughter in your basement because letting her out would get you into 'so much trouble'."

I think this analysis is correct. What is the correct resolution (how to align incentives)?

Should the value of the suit just go up incrementally, from 100M to 200M to 1Billion per prisoners after 20 years without a trial? Then nobody would wait twenty years.

Or, how would we get this analysis to be "true" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.48.242 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The solution is to make sure that your court system agrees that enemy combatants have no legal standing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Very funny, but it doesn't address the broader question. Why would the the kidnapper wake up one morning and say, "Today I will turn myself in" when doing nothing will "delay the inevitable"?  Where is the incentive at the margin?  91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The incentive is the conceit that they conclude they can "get away with it". Look at the Rutgers basketball and Penn State football situations, for example. You've got some actual dollar figures to work with there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They could do that anyway even from Guantanamo as they can have access to lawyers, plus many have been released after spending a long time there, so the hypothesis doesn't stand up. Dmcq (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, that is a very good point actually. Do you have any thoughts on what separates those who have been released from those in permanent non-charged limbo?  i.e. what puts them in a different category?  According to the above theory, for example, the main thing that would get someone released is absolutely no interest in legal action afterward (or maybe a lack of adequate legal representation, or a bad "story" that doesn't make high-powered lawyers want to help them sue, whatever).


 * Also returning to the incentive to keep committing crimes, do you think this is a real effect, even if not in the gitmo case? What do you think is a solution?  For example, take Lance Armstrong.  Every one of his tour de france wins would be asterisked, he would lose all endorsements and his reputation.  why would he ever do anything other than "postpone" coming clean?


 * Doesn't this lead to only external factors causing people to come clean? *even if* they're inevitable?  Another example is Madoff: he had investment from charities that were only allowed to spend 5% of their endowment every year.  So, he could be sure they wouldn't make a run on him and just inflate his fictional account statements to them.  Of course the crash was inevitable.  But it came when the financial crisis caused too many legitimate withdrawals from the rest of his customer base, and he became insolvent.  The question is: given the knowledge that something is inevitable, how would we get people to stop acruing whatever utility they see in every day until that inevitable moment?  (plus of course a non-zero chance that they get away with it forever or at least until their death)?  91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Guantanamo prisoner talks about the whole subject. The main thing that seems to be stopping the release of another bunch is that nobody wants them and America won't admit them. You'll not stop a criminal wth threats of higher and higher future punishment if it never is today, and lots of the heads of these financial institutions are little better than psychos and think they will get away with things forever. And they do too, more fool the rest of us when the worst they get is a golden handshake. Dmcq (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Constitution gives Congress the power to set jurisdiction for Federal Courts. They could simply pass a law saying the Federal Courts have no standing in civil suits brought by foreign combatants for treatment at overseas military facilities.  I believe the issue was brought up early in the war, but don't remember what the outcome was. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue of being sued can be deal with without too much trouble. Any law can be patched. But there is a Catch 22 in the Guantanamo issue: you don't want to release a terrorist, but you also don't want to release an innocent person to a country that won't recognize his innocence and might torture him. You also don't want to release an innocent who might turn into a terrorist. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I agree with the European Court of Human Rights about Abu Qatada, and America should never have stuck those people in Guantanamo if it wasn't going to take responsibility for their human rights. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "you also don't want to release an innocent who might turn into a terrorist"? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * People like you who ask questions about the system? Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the members of the European Court of Human Rights could adopt the Guantanamites and bring them into their homes to live. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Europeans are living with the problems they have. What I was saying is that America should do the same rather than ignoring what they say their country is based on "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Europeans should mind their own business. As regards the Declaration, it is not a legal document. Should the Guantanamites have been considered POW's instead of whatever they're considered to be now? Maybe. Which country's army were they a part of? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps Superman is right then ]. I'm sorry that it has got to such a stage that you can dismiss such values so easily. Dmcq (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Declaration of Independence is, of course, a legal document, although not part of the law code of the US. But that's entirely besides the point. The 35 words express a very good idea, and the basic principles of the declaration should not be ignored, in particular not for short-term political expediency. It's not primarily a legal question, but a moral question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the hypocritical attitude of Europeans who presume to tell us how to run our affairs, and look down upon us, but aren't willing to shoulder any of the burdens. When they express willingness to take care of the Gitmites, then they can talk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So if the inmates are treated according to the founding principles of the US (not to mention the general humanitarian principles of the Enlightenment) depends on the actions (or lack of same) of an uninvolved third party? Or, alternatively, you're pissed off at Europeans, and as a result, the Gitmos get it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we should just return them to their home countries' armies. Which would be... Who? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we should hold proper legal trials with all the bells and whistles to determine who among them was part of an army, who was an "illegal combatant", and who was just a guy with a roughly similar name who fell victim to an illiterate CIA operative making a typo, or who was sold by the war chief next valley who wanted to take over his garden for a new poppy plantation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The real problem then comes over what to do about people like Abu Qatada who is under restrictive bail conditions in London, i.e. you can't convict them or deport them but you're pretty certain they don't have your best interests at heart. Dmcq (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not having my (or our) best interest at heart sounds very much like a thought crime to me. I think that classification makes it quite easy to handle in our system. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Prisoners of war are in a different situation than civilian criminals. Once al-Qaeda surrenders, they can have their imprisoned soldiers back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What POWs? Yes, POWs can be taken under other circumstances then civilians. To compensate, they enjoy certain rights and protections. I sure appreciate that you want al-Qaeda to get their "imprisoned soldiers" back. But I'm less concerned with the well-being of al-Qaeda as with that of the prisoners, especially (but not exclusively) those that have been taken in by accident, or by randomly being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and to a speedy and public trial have been recognized as basic rights for all humans. Even bad ones. Even more those who we think are "bad", or some government claims are "bad". As with free speech, where there is little need to protect popular opinions, there is little need to protect the rights of people who all agree are hunky-dory. We have explicit rights to protect those under suspicion and prejudice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Flat tax question
This is quoted from the "administration and enforcement" subsection of the "tax effects" section of the article on flat tax:


 * "Under a pure flat tax without deductions, every tax period a company would make a single payment to the government covering the taxes on the employees and the taxes on the company profit. For example, suppose that in a given year, ACME earns a profit of 3 million, spends 2 million in wages, and spends 1 million on other expenses the IRS deems to be taxable income, such as stock options, bonuses, and certain executive privileges. Given a flat rate of 15%, ACME would then owe the IRS (3M + 2M + 1M) × 0.15 = 900,000. This payment would, in one fell swoop, settle the tax liabilities of ACME's employees as well as the corporate taxes owed by ACME. Most employees throughout the economy would never need to interact with the IRS, as all tax owed on wages, interest, dividends, royalties, etc. would be withheld at the source. The main exceptions would be employees with incomes from personal ventures. The Economist claims that such a system would reduce the number of entities required to file returns from about 130 million individuals, households, and businesses, as at present, to a mere 8 million businesses and self-employed."

If the ACME company earns 3M and spends 3M, then it generates no perceived revenue. How then could they come up with the 0.9M for tax? 64.251.40.254 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They said 3 million in profit, not earnings. The difference is that the profit is the excess earnings above their costs.  As to charging them wages paid and other business expenses, yes, this is double taxation, but that also happens now, in that the company is taxed and then the money they pay their employees is taxed again.  This would just move the double taxation completely onto the employer.


 * It's also a pet peeve of mine when they say "flat tax" (a fixed amount) but really mean "flat rate tax" (a fixed percentage). We do have flat taxes, like garbage disposal fees ($300 a year here), so they really need to be precise in their use of the language. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thankee!  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * StuRat -- a tax which is a fixed amount for each person assessed is known as a "head tax" (or sometimes a "poll tax"), so in practice "flat tax" isn't very ambiguous... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe where you are, but our $300 a year garbage collection fee has never been called either. StuRat (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're suggesting, Stu. It's called a "garbage disposal/collection fee", which seems pretty clear, but are you suggesting they change the name to "flat tax"?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's like asking why we consider a cat to be a mammal instead of just calling it a cat. If we are to classify the garbage collection fee, it's a flat tax. StuRat (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see that analogy at all, Stu. I wasn't taking issue with anything, just asking for clarification of just what it is you're suggesting.  So far, I'm none the wiser.  This would be the perfect place to put your campaign for "precision in the use of language" into practical effect. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  12:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos
How it came that this archive photo with distinct borders (sourced to NLA) appears to be cropped compared to another version, which has more details? Did Frank Hurley take two shots or is the latter photoshopped? Brandmeistertalk  19:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like one of them must be photoshopped. It isn't just the cropping, the cloud formations are completely different, and the sun is in a different place, but the poses of the people are precisely identical. It looks to me like the highlights in our version are not quite consistent with the sun position, so that's the more suspicious.  Hmmm. Looie496 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's really interesting. I'm almost sure the Commons photo is the one that's altered, because the clouds in that one partially obscure features seen in the other one in a way that would be easy to do but very hard to undo. Since the photo is in the public domain, we can upload the other image you found to Commons. That leaves the question of how an altered photo ended up in the digital collection of the National Library of Australia in the first place. -- BenRG 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's possible that Hurley himself altered the photo. What we now call "photoshopping" existed before photoshop, so we'd need to check the publication history of the Commons version. Paul B (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's one of his composites. See here . In other words both are equally "original". One is a print from the negative used for the main portion of the "artistic" version, the Commons version is the composite constructed and published by Hurley himself. i suggest that the fact that it's a combination-print should be noted in the file. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In those days creating a more dramatic image at the time of creating a print was a common practice, though some photographers did it more than others. Frank Hurley was definitely a master of the art. He did cop some criticism for it, but his images are great. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)