Great, four minutes of two fellas philosophically spinning their wheels. > The trade-offs are as bad as the solution, quite often. Embarrassing. This overgene

Great, four minutes of two fellas philosophically spinning their wheels. > The trade-offs are as bad as the solution, quite often. Embarrassing. This overgeneralization is so broad you could pass the US national debt through it sideways. It’s perfectly fine to take a subject matter, say lock downs or climate change, and talk in concrete terms about the trade-offs of different proposed solutions. But as presented here, it’s just noise that undermines public discourse. > You’re not gonna solve anything > There are no solutions. There just aren’t. Reductive and cynical generalization. We solve things all the time. Yes, every solution in the practical world has trade-offs. Yes, some solutions are worse than others. But the insinuation that solutions are and have to be perfect is false. Is he suggesting that we should just do nothing because we’re fallible, mortal beings incapable of perfection? Another quote comes to mind: Perfect is the enemy of good. > What we’re reducing politics to is series of one-trick pony shows > there’s a crisis here, and it’s the only thing we’ll talk about He knows full well governments balance a wide assortment of issues at any given time. However, as severity increases, it bubbles up chain of leadership to a group that has the mandate, resources, and experience to address the crisis. When you have lots of crises in play, you have to rely on an efficient executive to prioritize your responses and manage those resources. That can lead to bottlenecks, and when it comes to government, that can damage people in many ways. Today, we’re faced with a lot of severe crises that often play off one another. Talking about our governments’ ability to effectively and efficiently address problems at the scale they are affecting us is one thing, but the proximity of these two statements (whether he intended it or not) read as a handwavy dismissal of public or political reactions to climate change and lock downs as gimmicks. > I’m not conservative Disagree, I’ve read your substack. > I have some conservative views, some not-conservative views argumentum ad temperantiam, much?