Why duplicate effort? It isn't as if competition in the effort would improve state service, as it is impossible to compete against the state - it really doesn't like it.
> ... privately limiting terrorism might help ...
You do know that terrorism is an incredibly rare event, right? I am confident that any sort of effort, either by the state or by private initiative, would be a tremendous misallocation of resources. That leaves the effort firmly in the state's hands - where operating in the red is the norm. Private individuals can't continuously operate in the red because they'd eventually starve.
> What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion...
Yeah, I'd love to hear some ideas that aren't insane - but I won't be holding my breath.
You seem to be thinking of this as a parallel military/policing effort. I was thinking individual/social. Things of low cost, and hopefully with other benefits - such as keeping community members feeling engaged and included, providing an environment conducive to less violent memes, things of that vein...
No, I've set no constraints on private efforts. Things of low cost quickly become very expensive (in both time and money) when multiplied by the size of the population, or the number of cities, or whatever other base you're imagining. I've not yet heard an actual suggestion though.
The goal is not, primarily, "reduction of terrorism because terrorism is first-order a significant problem we need to deal with". Terrorism is first-order a tiny problem; reducing it is good, but not worth tremendous expense. But the second-order effects of overreaction to terrorism can be existential threats.
I think a multi-pronged approach is necessary. First, continuing to spread the word that the first-order effects are not so severe - you're helping, there. Second, trying to capture any over-reaction in a non-privileged sphere (and trying to multi-purpose it - medical first-response built in case of terrorism also helps with heart attacks and pandemic). Third, reducing instances of terrorism to be over-reacted to, insofar as it's reasonable.
People will respond more positively to the second point if it credibly has some impact on the third.
lol, imagine what you just described in a state machine. The hypothetical program is billed as an anti-terrorism measure, with a stealth payload to reduce irrational fear of terrorism. Those without the irrational fear will resist program implementation, as will those positively influenced by the program. At best the program would arrive at a fluctuating state of half implementation. This also would only ever be a private effort, as it would completely undermine the goals of the state.
I think the best we can hope for is free, high quality, approachable instruction in propositional logic. Now we only need to get people interested in PL... maybe sponsored product placement of SWI Prolog on daytime TV? :)
Actually, reducing irrational fear of terrorism can reduce incidence of terrorism - as terrorism becomes a less effective tool it will be employed less. "Refuse to be terrorized" isn't a bad meme.
Beyond that, one doesn't need to fear the first-order effects of terrorism in order to support such a program. Fearing damage done by undirected (or maliciously directed) overreaction to terrorism is plenty.
"This also would only ever be a private effort, as it would completely undermine the goals of the state."
I'm not convinced the state is quite that monolithic, but I think this is likely better as a private effort anyway.
Why duplicate effort? It isn't as if competition in the effort would improve state service, as it is impossible to compete against the state - it really doesn't like it.
> ... privately limiting terrorism might help ...
You do know that terrorism is an incredibly rare event, right? I am confident that any sort of effort, either by the state or by private initiative, would be a tremendous misallocation of resources. That leaves the effort firmly in the state's hands - where operating in the red is the norm. Private individuals can't continuously operate in the red because they'd eventually starve.
> What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion...
Yeah, I'd love to hear some ideas that aren't insane - but I won't be holding my breath.