Bootleggers & Baptists: Volume 4

Essays 1-10:

Bootleggers & Baptists: Volume 1

Essays 10-20:

Bootleggers and Baptists: Volume 2

Essays: 20-30

Bootleggers & Baptists: Volume 3

Essays 30-40:

Bootleggers and Baptists- XXX: USB-C Mandate in Europe

Bootleggers and Baptists-XXXI: Microchip Shortage

Bootleggers and Baptists XXXII: The Bootleggers of Mask Mandates

Bootleggers and Baptists XXXIII- The Three-Tiered Distribution of Beer in the “Bible Belt”

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXXIV: The Supervisor Spot at Work

Bootleggers & Baptists-XXXV: Multiple Listing Services & Real Estate

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXXVI- Woke Capitalism and Coalitions of Opportunity

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXXVII: Salmon in Alaska (The Fight Against GMO Food)

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXXVIII- Prop. 5 (California, 1998)- Tribal Gaming

Bootleggers & Baptists XXXIX- AB-5 and Uber

Bootleggers & Baptists: XL- Joe Rogan: Team Spotify v. The Medical Establishment

Supplemental Content:

Editorial Graveyard- Part III: The Bootlegger and Baptists of Woke Capitalism

Bootleggers & Baptists: XL served as the rough draft for Censorship Isn’t the Answer to “Misinformation.” But Retrodiction Markets Might Be- Published by The Foundation for Economic Education”.

Bootleggers & Baptists: LXIII- Walmart Raises Wages

Walmart has decided to raise its starting wage to $14 per hour. This seems contrary to conventional wisdom, as firms strive to minimize labor costs. Walmart may appear to be the proverbial white knight in this scenario. By the end of 2023, less than ten states will have minimum wage requirements that exceed Walmarts starting wage. In the context of a Bootleggers and Baptist (1983), is Walmart the Baptist? Is Walmart meeting Progressive politicians and the American public (51 % support a $15/hr. minimum wage) halfway? By offering slightly less than what the left-wing populists want, are they providing voluntary compromise?

Not so fast. On a superficial level, Progressive politicians would be the Baptists for championing the moral concern of the quality of life experienced by low-skill workers. It is important to note that their normative position does not account for the potential negative consequences of raising the minimum wage. Walmart is most likely not enacting this new corporate policy out of the kindness of its own heart. It is important to remember the insights made by Adam Smith (the butcher, the baker, and the brewer) in The Wealth of Nations (1776), business is not charity, Walmart executives need to act in the interests of the firm to survive in the marketplace. Walmart might be upping wages to retain employees, which would be the best-case scenario.

However, there may be a more oblique strategy the firm is circuitously implementing. This is purely speculative and not a conspiratorial claim. The following statements are merely conjecture. If a firm seeks to reduce labor costs; why would the company voluntarily increase wages? Indirectly, such a policy could assist in reducing labor costs. How? Through urging companies to automate operations. The St. Louis Federal Reserve even notes; when the minimum wage increases, the greater the potential for worker displacement.

Per the St. Louis Fed:

“… Increasing the minimum wage is a controversial issue. Although a higher minimum wage can provide higher income for low-wage workers, it can also reduce the number of job opportunities for those workers. Some of the reduction in jobs occurs because a higher minimum wage increases production costs, causing firms to shift away from, or stop, production of some goods…”

While the public would be disgusted by this realization, reviling such business tactics ignores the role of incentives in decision-making. If you were a Walmart executive, you would take the same measures to reduce operational costs.

Bootleggers & Baptists LXII: The Cartel Wants to Get in on Legal Weed

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

The War on Drugs waged by the United States since the 1970s has created a myriad of Bootlegger and Baptists (1983) dynamics. Few people question who stands to benefit from the legalization of currently prohibited drugs. This question becomes more prominent as more jurisdictions globally legalize recreational Marijuana. What happens when the most evident Bootlegger of the illicit drug trade (the Sinaloa Cartel) works to legitimatize commercial Marijuana sales? Does this strategic move shift their position in the coalition to that of the Baptists

This essay will examine this point to determine if the bad boys of the illegal dope game have turned over a new leaf. The legal status of Marijuana in Mexico is not as loose as the laws of their northern neighbors,  California and Arizona. Medical cannabis has been legal in Mexico since 2017, but what about the recreational consumption of pot? Mexico has decriminalized possession of up to  28 grams of Marijuana; recreational cannabis is still not legal. The staunch competition from the United States has caught the attention of various cannabis vendors in Mexico.

American dispensaries have achieved immense success considering sales for recreational weed are projected to hit “.. $25.1 billion in sales in 2025, with an average yearly growth of %23.60 from 2019 to 2025…”. It is self-evident that the illicit drug cartels would want a piece of the action. Yes, the most infamous cartel in Mexico has been watching. In the city of Culiacan, those left in charge since the incarceration of “El Chapo” Guzman, the “Narcosjuniors”, have established quasi-legal dispensaries. Selling various products ranging from edibles to best-sellers (manufacturing around 1,200 to 1,500 a week); pre-rolled joints. However, the cartel creating formal business networks, does this mean they are making sincere inroads to legalizing a drug with relatively few societal externalities? The transparent motive profit, leading them to create a commercial channel transitioning to a legal market.

If Sinaloa is once again the proverbial Bootlegger, who are our Baptists? We need to look at whom the cartel is employing to ensure quality control. After all, the cartels do not have the best reputation; when it comes to producing primo Marijuana. El Chapo’s successors will not be the Baptists, but they have enough sense to enlist the help of the passionate pot aficionados to cultivate higher-quality weed. They have hired weed-loving growers who have previously lived in California. Their love for cannabis urges them to:

“..We only have the permit to produce. The organization is giving us their money, their trust, and the green light to make the best product. But we can only sell to one client: the organization. We get good pay for our job, not in the millions, but enough to live off well, but more than that, the opportunity to develop top-notch weed,” one of the producers said..”

As usual, the cartel is still chasing profits, but the growers they employ want to grow the best pot in the world. Because of their love for the product, they want to dominate the global market (Canada, United States, and the Netherlands being the current movers and shakers). Only time will tell; once legalization takes full effect, if Mexico can overtake the California market. It would be nice to see an aggressive resurgence of high-caliber Acapulco Gold as a result of market competition.

Bootleggers & Baptists: Volume 3

Essays 1-10:

Bootleggers & Baptists: Volume 1

Essays 10-20:

Bootleggers and Baptists: Volume 2

Essays 20-30:

Bootleggers & Baptists: XX- The Death Penalty

Bootleggers & Baptists- XXI: Qualified Immunity, New Mexico, Cherry Garcia, and an Oil Barron

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXII- Opposition to Joe Biden’s Mentholated Cigarette Ban

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXIII- National Eviction Freeze

Bootleggers & Baptists XXIV: Budweiser versus The Stonewall Inn

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXV- The Energy Drink Crusader

Bootleggers & Baptists: XVI: Terrorism and Prediction Markets

Bootleggers and Baptists: XVII- Prediction Markets and Regulation (Gambling?)

Bootleggers and Baptists-XVIII- Fiat Currency

Bootlegger’s and Baptists XXIX- Arkansas and “Wet Counties”

Bootleggers and Baptists- XXX: USB-C Mandate in Europe

Prisoner’s Dilemmas- XXV: Social Justice (Part B)- The Left Cannibalizing Their Own (Sam Harris)

Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.com

Part A

There are times when Social Justice rhetoric and Wokism are weaponized and used again another contemporary liberal/progressive public figures. Few instances of this have been as underhanded as how the progressive tastemakers disparaged public intellectual Sam Harris. For years, Harris has exalted liberal values, including economic equity. This has been elicpsed by the fact as he has committed the cardinal sin of attempting to be logically consistent when professing to be a liberal.

Harris has been an instrumental voice in the New Atheism movement, a philosophical movement that perceives irreligiosity as crucial in advancing human progress. It would appear that a growing number of liberals agree, considering there was a ten percent decrease in belief in God among liberals polled over the past several years. To be critical of religiosity requires that all religions to be criticized, including Islam. Despite the conservative quiddity and its virtual incongruence with progressive values, many socially conscious commentators believe Islam is above reproach. For an atheist to give Islam a pass in the name of “tolerance” is intellectual dishonesty.

Harris is one of the few left-of-center thinkers audacious enough to critique Islam; he paid the price with accusations Islamophobia. The Southern Poverty Law Center attacked Harris for being critical of Islam. Social Justice rhetoric, Wokism, and political correctness caused liberals[1] to start cannibalizing their ideological fellow travelers. Almost utilizing obtuse adherence to the muddled logic of the far-left as a litmus test, separating the wheat from the chaff. Placing social pressure on academics and other intellectuals to tow the party line, regardless of its inconsistencies.

What the left has done is create a Prisoner’s Dilemma by creating no room for “dissenters” in the realm of intellectual thought. This has forced thinkers like Sam Harris and Bret Weinstein to seek intellectual companionship in the most unlikely of places. Does Ben Shapiro in any other universe seem like a potential ally for Harris? What the progressive wing of the left has failed to recognize is that they have only created odd bedfellows coalitions through attacking figures like Harris. If his fellow liberals will not tolerate his earnest commentary, perhaps conservatives will.

The reward for Mutual Cooperation: R= .5

If free-thinking liberals like Harris and the Progressive elites come to an understanding, that would be the best scenario. Odds are Harris will not persuade them nor vice versa; it is best for the Progressive with a political agenda to avoid commentary on the work and opinions of Harris.

Punishment for Defecting: P=-0

Both parties have their audiences (Sam Harris is a best-selling author and hosts a popular podcast), but it is unlikely that Harris or Progressive influencers, public intellectuals, or pundits will lose fans over doubling down. 

·  Temptation to Defect: T= 1

Since the political interests of Progressive political actors have strong incentives to cancel anyone who violates the norms of political correctness, Sam does not have much choice but not only to continue with his work but also to align himself with other pundits who will not attempt to de-platform him.

· Sucker’s Payoff: S= -1

If Sam no longer produced content after the accusations came out, it would have been the death knell for his career.

Condition 1:

· T>R>P>S

· 1> .5> 0 > -1

Condition 2:

· (T+S)/2<R

· (1+-1)/2 <.5

· (0)/2 <.5

· 0 < .5

Conclusion: 

Essentially, the uncompromising nature of the New Left has left open-minded intellectuals like Sam Harris with no other choice but to defect and find flatforms and other pundits who have no incentive to cancel him for criticizing Islam.

Even more concerning is the suboptimal results of stifling intellectual debate through defacto censorship projected by cancel culture. In the arena of advancing knowledge this is poisoning the well. Many brilliant thinkers might prefer to remain quiet than get canceled. 

Notes

  1. Liberals in the contemporary sense of the phrase, not to be confused with Classical Liberalism.

Prisoner’s Dilemmas- XXV: Social Justice (Part A)-College Admissions

Progressive pundits and advocates for social justice often hold conflicting views in the name of upholding political correctness. Analogous to other manifestations of inconsistencies, proponents of contemporary progressive ideals will be backed into a corner by their logically incompatible beliefs. This is not an underhanded jab at modern liberalism; but an observation that suggests that hyper-woke social justice is rationally untenable. The grabbled jargon of critical race theory has only served to muddy the logic behind defending the disadvantaged based on sexual, racial, religious, and gender identity [1]. 

The burning question for every wide-eyed young adult is which discriminated group deserves a privileged status in society. The ideal answer would be every non-white, non-male, non-Christian, and member of the LGBTQ+ community. But this is not a perfect world with cleanly delineated categories. The social justice crowd has tried to rely on intersectionality as a heuristic to make this determination. However, activistic pursuits, like other resources, are finite and best allocated to the most productive use. Activists have ascertained that not every minority group is entitled to the same degree of reparative policies. Some of the most salient evidence is the Asian college admission (e.g. Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College) controversies. Are Asians too successful for us to treat them like a minority in the United States? What about the racial discrimination Asian Americans have faced in recent years since the COVID-19 outbreak? These are some of the precarious questions that social justice advocates need to answer, when does an ethnic minority group’s success place them outside of minority status? 

The reverse discrimination of successful minority groups creates Prisoner Dilemma-like social dynamics. After all, these individuals came to America, followed the law, contributed to their communities, and independently achieved economic success. Harvard’s college admissions practices are a slap in the face. It is not likely that these individuals will lose their work ethic and start slacking off all because of this double standard. It will have other unintended consequences, such as individuals not wanting to fully participate in American public life and choosing to keep to themselves in their ethnic communities. Potentially fostering distrust of non-Asians, regardless of their intentions.

Condition 1:

· T>R>P>S

· 1> .5> 0 > -1

Condition 2:

· (T+S)/2<R

· (1+-1)/2 <.5

· (0)/2 <.5

· 0 < .5

Notes

1.)   In the opinion of the author of this essay, Critical Race Theory was never intended to enter public discourse. It was a highly technical and wonkish framework that was purely academic. There is a danger of unsavvy SJWs misinterpreting the theory and incorrectly applying it in activism. Many of the core assumptions of CRT are inherently flawed.

Prisoner’s Dilemmas=XXIV: Black Friday

Photo by Ivan Samkov on Pexels.com

It is irrefutable that Black Friday is the busiest shopping day in the United States. The unofficial kickoff to the holiday season initiates a month of stress and conflict for most Americans. Tensions running high, it is easy to forget the true spirit of holidays at the center of the winter months. Creating conditions perfect for ample Prisoner’s Dilemmas, one example being department stores opting to open their doors earlier on Black Friday, but fewer employees are willing to work earlier hours (this example is courtesy of Cornell University).

However, the example provided in this brief essay will be much more conspicuous than the example above. This inaugural event ushering in the holidays is renowned for inspiring violent and aggressive behavior. Causing injuries, deaths, arrests, and damage to private property. If shoppers maintained their decorum and could find peaceful means of settling disputes over who gets to purchase the last Play Station 5, Black Friday shopping would not have the same negative undercurrent. The adrenaline-fueled frenzy of overzealous bargain hunters; tend to lose themselves in the pandemonium. It is reasonable to wonder if the big-ticket items they are after or the thrill of getting a good deal.

To model this the Prisoner’s Dilemma dynamics of the skirmishes of Black Friday Shopping. Let us construct the conditions for a potential scenario. Jack and Jim are vying for the same insane deal on a new Ryobi table saw at Home Depot. These men are known for having aggressive alpha-male personalities; neither is willing to back down from a challenge. Both gentlemen camp out at Home Depot hours before they open for Black Friday sales, but neither were the first ones to arrive (some more eccentric individuals have been camping for days). By the time Jack and Jim enter the store, only one Ryobi table saw is left; Jim spots it first. Jack then shouts “Hey, buddy that’s mine.” Jim replies “ ***K you pal, I am not giving this up without a fight”. Jack and Jim drunk on the thrill of a killer deal, testosterone, and entitlement square off to assault each other. Their impulsivity does not account for the adverse long-term consequences of fighting over a $300 table saw.

The reward for Mutual Cooperation: R= $100

While both men may not walk out with the saw, they both avoid the municipal fine of ($100.00) for fighting/ disturbing the peace.

Punishment for Defecting: P=-$ 100

The punishment for Defecting would be a loss of -$100, but Jack and Jim are too headstrong to press assault charges against the other; the only penalty cost will be the $100 fine from the town. 

·   Temptation to Defect: T= $275

Home Depot is practically giving the saw away for $25.00 (MSRP: $300.00), there is a significant temptation to defect because this is the offer of a lifetime. 

·   Sucker’s Payoff: S=-$275

The sucker’s payoff would be a -$275 Why? Because forgoing the deal without fighting (considering the penalty is extraordinarily low, Jack and Jim live in a small rural community prone to bar fights and domestic violence, their fight is a minor issue in the opinion of local law enforcement). The -$275 represents the difference between paying for the saw at full cost.

Does the question become does the conflict between Jack and Jim fulfill the conditions of a Prisoner’s Dilemma? Per Nordstrom the two conditions that need to be met are 1.) T>R>P>S and 2.) (T+S)/2<R.

Condition 1:

  • T>R>P>S
  • +$275> +$100>-$ 100> – $275

Condition 2:

  • (T+S)/2<R
  • (275+ -275)/2< 100
  • (0)/2<100
  • 0<100

Based on this rudimentary model, which may not accurately reflect real-world conditions, reflects a Prisoner’s Dilemma.

The Strategic Depth Theory of Diversity & Inclusion Has Been Accepted by The Journal of Brief Ideas

It would be easy to assume that the increase in workplace Diversity and Inclusion programs was caused by corporate executives becoming more politically progressive. Is this even true? Per Fos, Kempf, and Tsoutsoura (2022), approximately; 69 % of corporate executives identify as Republicans. If this uptick in D&I programs is not connected political orientation of leadership, what can explain this phenomenon? One potential cause for this shift could be firms wanting to avoid discrimination lawsuits. Lawsuits are monetarily costly and detrimental to the company’s reputation and impact future sales.

This is what the Strategic Depth Theory of Diversity & Inclusion attempts to answer. Strategic Depth is a concept from military strategy; defined as “… the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants’ industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production…” (Harkavy, 2001). Similar to how Israel gained Strategic Depth from the acquisition of the Westbank (Eisenkot, 1997), corporations obtain this geopolitical advantage by distancing themselves from the litigious incident by cultivating D&I programs. The Executives can then claim that the firm does not condone discriminatory behavior, effectively creating distance between the plaintiff and the firm

https://zenodo.org/record/7370019

https://beta.briefideas.org/ideas/eaaaba5c2f279de4f24b6b1f9a355a9b

Prisoner’s Dilemmas-XXIII- Quiet Quitting

Photo by Ron Lach on Pexels.com

By now, most of you are aware of the new workplace phenomenon known as Quiet Quitting. Forbes defines Quite Quitting as “..unsatisfied employees put forth the least amount of effort possible to keep their paychecks…”. Most employees might think they are clever for only doing the bare minimum, but managers have their strategy for handling underperforming employees; Dehiring. Instead of outright firing the troublesome employee, management directly acknowledges their dissatisfaction with the job role. The hope is that this might prompt them to find another job.

Dehiring has been described as a win-win scenario because it acknowledges the mutual frustration of the worker and the firm. Side-stepping the legal and psychological hurdles of navigating the labor laws governing terminating a subpar employee. However, what if either employee isn’t getting the hint? Managers tend to be ineffective due to poor communication skills, which could muddle the succinct message of “Please find a new job!”. If there is any breakdown in the messaging, both worker and their boss; will result in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. The ineffectual expression of shared frustration will make this process protracted and end in an actual firing.

The reward for Mutual Cooperation: R= .5

Either the employee or manager could hope; if they play hardball, the other will eventually fold. The manager ultimately hopes the employee will change their ways, it is always easier and cheaper to have a current employee change their attitude than find a new hire. Concurrently, worker wishes that rules will loosen up, higher pay, or lighter workload, banking on the fact that their boss “needs” them.

Both parties holding these zero-sum strategies are being obtuse; neither outcome is realistic. The best approach would be for each coalition in this game (company/management vs. unhappy worker) to directly and honestly express their concerns. Not only would this path be more efficient, but if the manager is faithful to the etiquette of dehiring, the problematic employee should have time to find a new job. 

·     Punishment for Defecting: P=0

It would be improbable to have a central authority that can definitively prove and punish either the manager or the worker for using passive-aggressive or unclear communication. Since this is a game-theoretical model, for the sake of simplicity, let us assign the punishment value at zero.

·     Temptation to Defect: T=1

As mentioned previously, it is tempting to adopt the longshot strategy; after all, either coalition gets all their preferred conditions met; with exerting the least effort possible. It is easy to view ambiguity as an excuse to hold out for a no-compromise solution. 

·     Sucker’s Payoff: S=-1

In a no-compromise strategy, it has win-take-all dynamics. The costs of buckling for either coalition are high. Arguably, the monetary costs are much higher for the firm, but the subjective evaluation of the worker’s disutility of conforming to their boss’s parameters would be difficult to measure. 

Condition 1:

· T>R>P>S

· 1> .5> 0 > -1

Condition 2:

· (T+S)/2<R

· (1+-1)/2 <.5

· (0)/2 <.5

· 0 < .5

Overall, it appears as if the Quiet Quitting controversy, sloppy communication combined with employees and employers giving into their desire to be lazy and have all their preferences met engenders a Prisoner’s Dilemma. 

Bootleggers & Baptists: LXI- SBF and the Fall of FTX

Photo by Crypto Crow on Pexels.com

Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, once masqueraded as the regulation-friendly face of the crypto markets. SBF was known for his openness to regulation and willingness to work with lawmakers; he not only wanted to graciously assist our elected officials in Washington with guiding policy but was also “socially conscious”. Sam was a vocal proponent of effective altruism and possessed a Benthamite concern for maximizing social benefits to help the most people. This wunderkind 30-year-old was too good to be true

Whether it was Bankman-Fried donating large sums of money to the Democratic party (the purported political advocate for the economically disadvantaged) or his views on veganism and charity, it was all a façade, a thin veneer masking his actual conduct. Per Reuters:

“… The turmoil at FTX has seen at least $1 billion of customer funds vanish from the platform, sources told Reuters on Friday. Bankman-Fried had transferred $10 billion of customer funds to his trading company, Alameda Research, the sources said.

New problems emerged on Saturday when FTX’s U.S. general counsel Ryne Miller said in a Twitter post that the firm’s digital assets were being moved into so-called cold storage “to mitigate damage upon observing unauthorized transactions.”

Cold storage refers to crypto wallets that are not connected to the internet to guard against hackers…”

As investors fled the platform and Binance pulled the plug on bailing out FTX, it is clear that SBF misrepresented the financial health of the exchange and its business practices. All of these developments are reminiscent of the Enron scandal. A corporation rubbing elbows with congress to engage in regulatory capture and foster a positive public image. While concurrently; creating a smoke screen obscuring the company’s off-color conduct.

The economist Bruce Yandle’s theory of Bootleggers and Baptist (1983) coalitions perfectly describes the Machiavellian tactics utilized by Mr. Bankman-Fried. After all, perception is what matters. If investors were not distracted by his social advocacy and success, they might have spotted the red flags. As observed by Yandle, there is often a demand for regulation. Often from parties that prima facie would oppose such measures (p.13). Why? This gives industry elites the to help shape rules that will benefit their bottom line and yield good publicity. Frequently, these scenarios are win-win for the firms involved. SBF proposed a licensing system for Defi (decentralized financial technology); per Erik Vorhees

“..self-enforced rules and blacklists would only serve established exchanges that could afford to pay for compliance…”

SBF simultaneously worked to craft regulation that FTX would benefit from while appearing to share some of the concerns of crypto-phobic politicians like Elizabeth Warren. Progressive politicians are the Baptists in this scenario. SBF’s arrogance ended up being his own Achilles Heel, ultimately revealing his true colors, those of a covert Bootlegger (p.190). 

The Strategic Depth Theory of Diversity and Inclusion

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Paul Gottfried has made many insightful contributions in his storied academic career; however, even the most erudite thinkers have their blind spots. One thing that Gottfried errs on is the ideological proclivities of American corporations (if applying methodical individualism, the expressed opinions of executive management represent the firm). In his article, Bourgeois Liberalism [1], Gottfried infers that the leadership of US firms has moved further to the left.

Superficially, this seems to be the case, especially considering the rapid and conspicuous growth of corporate Diversity and Inclusion programs. However, most office workers are not hardcore progressives. This is also true of management. Per Fos, Kempf, and Tsoutsoura (2022) 69 % of corporate executives identify as Republicans (p.8). In the current political climate in the United States, few registered Republicans want to be labeled as woke. Politics may not explain the increase in Diversity and Inclusion initiatives in corporate America.

If Gottfried is incorrect about the political preferences of U.S. corporate executives, what could explain the uptick in D&I in the workplace? It might be sensible to look at discrimination ligation to see why executives adopt corporate policies antithetical to their values. Lawsuits are not only monetarily costly [2], but also generate negative publicity. Frequently, public perception matters more than facts. The wisest policies in corporate governance would be to create distance between the firm and the perceived instances of workplace discrimination to dispel any claims of a hostile work environment.

  This phenomenon is known as the Strategic Depth Theory of Diversity and Inclusion because where firms try to distance themselves from the incident. Strategic Depth is best defined as:            

“… the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants’ industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production..”

(Harkavy, 2001, p.12).

In the field of military strategy, there are many notable applications of this concept in geopolitical struggles. The most obvious example is Israel [3]. Israel has long been a small nation surrounded by hostile neighbors (p.4), making the acquisitions of “..Sinai, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights..” critical in achieving national security (Eisenkot, 1997,p.5). Much as territorial expansion can act as a buffer between quarreling nations, the creation of programs fostering D&I figuratively acts as a geographic barrier between the firm and the plaintiff. Including these principles in the company’s culture; gives executive management the latitude to condemn the offensive actions of middle managers and hourly employees without appearing to be hypocritical.

Notes

  1. Thanks to Calculus of Decay for re-blogging the article back in early August 2022.
  2. Even if the firm avoids paying damages, there are still costs associated with legal defense. 
  3. This is not a commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , but a conspicuous example to illustrate my theoretical postulations.