It’s a very common state to throw criticisms and theories with no solutions - it’s called “the bloodless intellect” - and since it offers no solutions and takes

It’s a very common state to throw criticisms and theories with no solutions - it’s called “the bloodless intellect” - and since it offers no solutions and takes no actions, it is almost always the worst option. Granted sometimes a bad solution is worse than no solution, but the vast majority of times, no solution is the worst option. The only thing being a bloodless intellect protects is the ego of the person, because their identity is so tied to their intellect they dislike it when their theories are actually evaluated, because the chance that they might be wrong materialises, and that would damage their fragile ego and deeply associated self identity, so better to act snidy and offer no solutions than to offer something that might be wrong, and call into question their self identity. I grant that you do make a contribution, a tiny, tiny one - because without action, your ideas will never be bigger than the few tiny brain cells they occupy. Saying "its' complex, I dont have any solutions" is a cop-out, do you think if everybody did that the corperate tax avoidance and greed would get better or worse? Or do you think if harsher punishments are introduced and enforced it might make the executives who are in the grey area of activity think twice? Compare more legal countries like the US with corrupt countries where this isn't enforced (e.g. Pakistan) it's clear that enforcement and the threat of punishment vastly helps mitigate corruption, and while there are no absolute silver bullets, threats of punishment are good for keeping the "lawful evil" in line, because it forces them to factor punishment into the risk equation, which otherwise, is only about profit.