[bmitc]

> Is it more important to dole out punishments or to get the best result? Because the best result isn't going to be from draconian punishments for CEOs.

Is that same logic applied to the lower class? Or is this basically admitting that if you are rich enough and bury your crimes and negligence behind enough paperwork and complexity, that you are no longer culpable?

I get your point that applying hard rules will encourage people to escape them, but there needs to be some framework opposed to the current anything goes and we might fine you at worst.

[roenxi]

Yes, it is. Lower class voters (ie, the majority of voters) are typically responsible for some of the most horrific damage done to society through a combination of inattention and negligence through poor financial, healthcare, welfare, warfare and industrial policies.

We politely ignore that and focus on the present and the future, because they have too much power as a class to be punished and it wouldn't do much good anyway.

[selimthegrim]

Please tell us more about these noted exponents of the national security state.

[roenxi]

What counts as the "national security state"? Because as far as I recall the military is popular, the FBI was a trusted institution up to 2016 and getting a bit partisan since then. PATRIOT Act was passed in an environment of roaring support for the Bush administration over the screams of anyone who cared about basic rights and process. You don't have to go far to find people who support US intervention in Ukraine.

The US security state, in all its facets, has a lot of popular support. By people who I think are a bit foolish, but nevertheless. (although I'll sneak in that the karmic justice of watching the mechanisms of the War on Terror get turned on Republican voters has been sad but satisfying)