Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Martin Greenwald, M.D.'s avatar

It really seems like a significant portion of the American intelligentsia just doesn't understand—or wont admit—that in every society a small but non-trivial minority of men are both (1) highly prone to violence and causing havoc and (2) can't be "fixed" or rehabilitated and must be sequestered from society in one way or another.

Expand full comment
Always Adblock's avatar

I think you've nailed it. The pundit class in the Anglosphere simply doesn't do tradeoff thinking when it comes to issues that they find emotive. Civil liberties are a prima facie good, and since they're good they can't contribute to anything bad, and crime is bad, so civil liberties have no relationship with crime. That really is the sum total of the thought process.

You can apply it to so many things. COVID lockdowns. An unalloyed good. Their proponents wouldn't even countenance the damages to education and to the mental health of those who need high levels of socialization. It wasn't even "we are making this temporary tradeoff - there will be some costs, but the benefits outweigh them."

Politically this makes sense. Pointing out the flaws in your own plan is seen as weak, even if you believe your plan to have benefits that far outweigh those flaws. But I think because we don't speak this way and because we're not expected to speak this way, we also don't bother thinking this way. (Maybe this is backwards and the thought precedes how we speak.) My point is that I think much of our pundit classes and political classes have actually lost the ability to think about these tradeoffs at all, and that they are acting in the service of 100% good, 100% of the time, and that they genuinely can't anticipate any downsides to their chosen courses of action. It's a holy crusade all of the time.

Expand full comment
72 more comments...

No posts