"- - - this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test."
It's a statement like this which throws the entire article and whoever prints it into question.
The benefit seems to be civilization as we know it.
The cost is too high for whom? The benefit is too little for whom?
Does the Wall Street Journal think that it's readership can afford to retreat into armed enclaves and leave the masses to fend for themselves?
I'd like to see a price put on civilization.
Arf