What is America’s “Achilles heel”

[padren]

#1 is flat out illegal, no way would I ethically condone it. #2 sounds like it's using existing laws and doesn't violate anything (since legally the IRS couldn't reprimand it's agent for telling us something we could find out on our own), and has the added advantage of being info I could legally pass along to anyone, so I have no qualms whatsoever ethically or legally. #3 may be legal (questionable) but ethically I don't like it, it's the sort of thing that our system should work harder to prevent, unless the councilman's "favor" has no strings attached and I've done a great job presenting why "favoring" my company in the bid is in the best interests of the city, and not just my own.

 

Okay, but if you had to put a percentage figure on how many Americans would take advantage of all three, what would you guess? Keep in mind they are assured in confidence that this will never get them in trouble and no one will need to know - just simple, albeit dirty money.

 

What percentage do you have confidence would hold to at least your ethical standards, recession and all?

[SH3RL0CK]

I can't help but to pose a bit of a question when it comes to ethics... at least in our social view of each other as Americans, how many of us feel our normal, regular fellow Americans would choose the "high road" and turn down a (sure fire, not going to get caught) little benefit through a lucky connection, such as:

 

1) Insider trading - would you take a tip from a friend that had insider information, if it couldn't be traced?

 

2) Tax sheltering advice from an IRS agent friend - dodge paying what others would have to, thanks to a good connection?

 

3) Allow a councilman to "favor" your company in a city bid?

 

Regardless of being asked if you would engage in such activity - even knowing you couldn't be caught, how much would you trust your fellow Americans not to engage in such activities, if the opportunity arose?

How much do you think the average American trusts the average American not to engage in such activities?

 

I don't know if we really have enough faith in each other to believe we wouldn't use such advantages if they came up - elected people are powerful, connected people with a lot of such opportunities. We may see each other as more honest as a result of assuming "normal" people just don't have the same opportunities to abuse.

 

 

These examples are nothing in comparison to the graft and corruption that occurs, and is even expected, in other parts of the world. While America has its weaknesses, I think one of its strengths (and that of many other Western nations as well) is a profound lack of corruption.

[Phi for All]

Okay, but if you had to put a percentage figure on how many Americans would take advantage of all three, what would you guess? Keep in mind they are assured in confidence that this will never get them in trouble and no one will need to know - just simple, albeit dirty money.

 

What percentage do you have confidence would hold to at least your ethical standards, recession and all?

Again, I don't see each of the three choices in the same light. For #1, there may be no personal risk in your scenario, but how close is this "friend" who gave us the tip? Would we be jeopardizing his job or freedom by acting on his tip? I think many more people would sacrifice their own ethics while backing away if a friend was at risk.

 

#2 is just not illegal or unethical. If there is a loophole or gray area that the IRS will not punish me for using, then it flat doesn't matter where I got the intel from, it's available to everyone who can dig up the information.

 

I think #3 would be exploited most. Many people would just see this as part of the "system" and even be able to justify a campaign contribution as part of this same system, especially when it gains them political favors. This is the worst part, because it means people think this is the way business gets done in this country, and if Average Joe owned a business and could afford the contributions and had the contacts, he would probably expect the considerations.

 

I understand where you're coming from in this, padren. I would have to say that less than 10% of the population would share my exact views in this matter, if actually faced with the situations. For the record, I actually have faced the first two scenarios, and acted as I described.

[iNow]

Okay, but if you had to put a percentage figure on how many Americans would take advantage of all three, what would you guess?

85-90%.

 

It's like being hungry and seeing free food. You take it. It's evolutionary. Rules are arbitrary. Survival is not.

[The Bear's Key]

padren didn't ask if we'd do it, or risk anything. Just if we'd trust others not to indulge only when they're practically guaranteed to not be caught...even for the legal practices.

 

I can't help but to pose a bit of a question when it comes to ethics... at least in our social view of each other as Americans, how many of us feel our normal, regular fellow Americans would choose the "high road" and turn down a (sure fire, not going to get caught) little benefit through a lucky connection, such as:

 

1) Insider trading - would you take a tip from a friend that had insider information, if it couldn't be traced?

 

2) Tax sheltering advice from an IRS agent friend - dodge paying what others would have to, thanks to a good connection?

 

3) Allow a councilman to "favor" your company in a city bid?

In my opinion, less than 40% would take advantage. However, if prodded on by someone else, that changes to over 75%.

 

Also, padren's question ties into SH3RL0CK's next observation (below) if the question were changed to how many businesses do we trust to not indulge on the lack of Constitutional protections in those nations.

 

These examples are nothing in comparison to the graft and corruption that occurs, and is even expected, in other parts of the world. While America has its weaknesses, I think one of its strengths (and that of many other Western nations as well) is a profound lack of corruption.

There's a reason for everything. I believe our Constitution allows people's inherent good to mature and not be overly stunted by corruption. Those industry/religious figures who are power hungry might boldly attempt to grab more power here, but are routinely thwarted or checked.

 

The million dollar question (and pun) is, do we believe they'd not be drawn to many of the far away lands where their power encounters no such limitations? Or....if they could do so unnoticed, how many businesses do you think would abuse such lack of oversight (i.e. the free reign they wouldn't get in the U.S. to hog-away many important resources)?

 

Also, what percentage from cause-and-effect do their unrestricted activities help increase corruption within the other nations?

 

Those questions are for everyone.

 

(I think the ability for industries to operate dirtily elsewhere while basing themselves in the U.S. is our "achilles heel” as well)

[padren]

These examples are nothing in comparison to the graft and corruption that occurs, and is even expected, in other parts of the world. While America has its weaknesses, I think one of its strengths (and that of many other Western nations as well) is a profound lack of corruption.

 

I absolutely agree - which I do thank our legal system, enforcement and general culture for.

 

My point in general is about trust, because if we don't trust the average businessman not to take advantage of abuseable power we really can't blame people for mistrusting politicians who have much higher access.

 

 

I may be completely off, but I would suspect the highest position of 'ethical credibility' would like in judges in the US. Perhaps not the ones that are elected off campaign contributions and of course they are often individually seen as corrupt in certain cases - but I suspect that position holds some of the highest respect in our society.

[john5746]

I absolutely agree - which I do thank our legal system, enforcement and general culture for.

 

And economic wealth.

[Pangloss]

I hope you'll forgive the tardy reply, but I've been offline for the last week.

 

Sorry mate. Slang. One of a variety of epithets used to describe reserve or part time troops. "Weekend Warriors" and "Cut lunch Commandos" are two others.

 

Thanks.

 

I'm not familiar with any examples of US "weekend warriors" at the command level put in charge of international troop units. Perhaps at the operational level, i.e. for a specific event, I don't know. It's been my general impression that in order to even work on a theater-level command team (which is what I assume an international unit would report to) you have to be a career officer. But my impressions about these sorts of things have been wrong before.

 

 

Your ITAR rules often cause sore spots. Note this BBC article from 2006. US ITAR rules nearly scuttled the JSF because the US would not guarantee the UK access to the software that would allow the UK "sovreignity" over the aircraft.

 

If we're spending millions on planes, we expect the computer code so that we can fix the things. We would also hope it would be "back door" free.

 

It's not so much the UK that concerns security people as it is countries like India or Taiwan, where purchases have major political implications. But yes, you're absolutely right -- once the decision is made to sell the item, then they certainly ought to have the repair manual!

 

And I'm afraid examples like this abound. The unfortunate reality of modern American politics is that its main participants lag far, far behind where they need to be in terms of understanding science and technology, and this is particularly painful when trying to explain how to apply even the most fundamental security concepts to specific applications. In another thread here we're talking about "open source voting" -- mention that to an unbriefed American politician (from EITHER party) and you're likely to get a response along the lines of "but the right to an anonymous vote is protected by the Constitution!" (sigh)

 

We have to get better at that sort of thing.

 

 

Look, it's not that we don't trust you at all, it's just that there are enough niggles to stop us trusting you (actually your government) wholeheartedly. I'm sure that every Australian that knows jack about military matters is well aware that if push came to shove and we needed help, then every US serviceman and servicewoman would be just itching to come. We just wonder sometimes if your government would find a way to not let them.

 

Yup, I get it, it's frustration and a sense of your complaints not being heard. Many of us often feel the same way, and I don't think you should worry about backlash even if you get it. As annoyed as I get sometimes about foreign criticism of America, I vastly prefer it over an alternative like angry silence. I for one want our international friends to keep telling us EXACTLY what they think, every chance they get.

 

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[JohnB]

I for one want our international friends to keep telling us EXACTLY what they think, every chance they get.

If your friends don't tell you what they think, who will?

 

Of course, as with everything, there are three sides.

 

Your side, their side and the truth.