OTOH, I think the points raised by M. Rowley and M. Silbert are pretty good. As to the topic, if the US can't overcome its divides within, anything beyond that is mere posturing, right?
Glenn, you keep asking what do we think and you seldom engage.
I think that this discussion with Robert Wright is mental masturbation.
Let me ask you a question. Has Wright ever solved a real world problem of any substance in his entire life? Wright is exactly who Tom Sowell wrote about in "Intellectuals and Society".
... everything is zero-sum... Even global warming and nuclear proliferation... It seems to me that non-zero sum thinking is a utopian fantasy only indulged by those who are winning in society and who will pay no cost when they shut down the coal fired power plants in the third world and the cost of gas for the average blue color worker goes to $10 a gallon. There are always winners and losers but it's easy to forget if you're one of the winners.
If I buy a coffee from Starbucks, who is the winner and who is the loser in that transaction? Both parties win, otherwise the transaction would not take place. Most of the economic engagement we have with the world is positive sum.
I think I would argue that nuclear deterrence is the only reason that certain very small countries even exist in today's world. Unilateral disarmament which surely mean their destruction by conventional means.
It would be wonderful if we could all put down our prejudice and bias and hold hands and dance around a fire singing kumbaya but unfortunately that's not the world we live in. People are incredibly nasty as evidenced by our current partisan fighting in the United States over vaccines. Half of the country thinks it would be awesome if the other half died from a disease simply because they did not feel secure in getting a shot. Most of these arguments again are philosophical utopian musings that are interesting in a classroom but don't translate into the real world as much as we would like them to. The books of Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt are awesome to read and very interesting but man has not involved to the levels where we can put aside tribalism and hate. That's why we have law enforcement rule of law and constitutions. The founders were very clear that if men were angels they wouldn't need a constitution or a court system.
I think I would argue that that's the sort of argument that somebody who is wealthy will make to somebody who stands to lose even the hope of a meager life.... Telling a poor person to remain in abject poverty or to become more destitute because some folks in a higher socio-economic strata are predicting some future catastrophe seems thin gruel to me and pretty condescending...
I would argue that a devastating blow will come to the most vulnerable and that to think otherwise is naive. For instance the United States is beginning booster shots and will probably be giving them to no end while many in the rest of the world haven't even received one shot. It is always the poor and those without power that will suffer at the hands of the strong and powerful. To imagine a world where there is a soft landing for all because of the altruistic nature of those at the top is pure fantasy.
This was good. I like both gentlemen.
That said, it doesn't take long to see the stark disappointment in some of Glenn's fans when he engages with the (so-called) opposition.
Some of Glenn's fans, I believe, want to see him *fight* like he's on Newsmax or somethin'. But that's not who he is; and I am glad that's the case.
This "fan" for one isn't trying to promote food fights.
I personally just found the discussion vapid and meandering.
Wright is a "public intellectual" a la Tom Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society". I hate the thought of Glenn drifting down the same path.
Each has their own Way, as M. Charles "says."
OTOH, I think the points raised by M. Rowley and M. Silbert are pretty good. As to the topic, if the US can't overcome its divides within, anything beyond that is mere posturing, right?
Glenn, you keep asking what do we think and you seldom engage.
I think that this discussion with Robert Wright is mental masturbation.
Let me ask you a question. Has Wright ever solved a real world problem of any substance in his entire life? Wright is exactly who Tom Sowell wrote about in "Intellectuals and Society".
... everything is zero-sum... Even global warming and nuclear proliferation... It seems to me that non-zero sum thinking is a utopian fantasy only indulged by those who are winning in society and who will pay no cost when they shut down the coal fired power plants in the third world and the cost of gas for the average blue color worker goes to $10 a gallon. There are always winners and losers but it's easy to forget if you're one of the winners.
If I buy a coffee from Starbucks, who is the winner and who is the loser in that transaction? Both parties win, otherwise the transaction would not take place. Most of the economic engagement we have with the world is positive sum.
Trade makes both parties better off.
Perhaps but that was not the context of their discussion.
I think I would argue that nuclear deterrence is the only reason that certain very small countries even exist in today's world. Unilateral disarmament which surely mean their destruction by conventional means.
It would be wonderful if we could all put down our prejudice and bias and hold hands and dance around a fire singing kumbaya but unfortunately that's not the world we live in. People are incredibly nasty as evidenced by our current partisan fighting in the United States over vaccines. Half of the country thinks it would be awesome if the other half died from a disease simply because they did not feel secure in getting a shot. Most of these arguments again are philosophical utopian musings that are interesting in a classroom but don't translate into the real world as much as we would like them to. The books of Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt are awesome to read and very interesting but man has not involved to the levels where we can put aside tribalism and hate. That's why we have law enforcement rule of law and constitutions. The founders were very clear that if men were angels they wouldn't need a constitution or a court system.
I think I would argue that that's the sort of argument that somebody who is wealthy will make to somebody who stands to lose even the hope of a meager life.... Telling a poor person to remain in abject poverty or to become more destitute because some folks in a higher socio-economic strata are predicting some future catastrophe seems thin gruel to me and pretty condescending...
I would argue that a devastating blow will come to the most vulnerable and that to think otherwise is naive. For instance the United States is beginning booster shots and will probably be giving them to no end while many in the rest of the world haven't even received one shot. It is always the poor and those without power that will suffer at the hands of the strong and powerful. To imagine a world where there is a soft landing for all because of the altruistic nature of those at the top is pure fantasy.