The US government is not one person or a small set of people with a coherent strategy making decisions based on cost-benefit analysis. It’s an extremely complex emergent system whose properties can only be understood by studying them empirically, not by appealing to arguments about what a human would think is worth it or would make sense.
Another statement that I would have simply accepted as fact a year ago, but now I believe is false. The US government is now primarily one person, and occasionally a small set of people, making cost-benefit decisions on what will benefit themselves more. The complex system is mostly gone, soon to be washed away, in favor of layers of patronage and favoritism. Much simpler.
That is not true. Lots of things Trump wants the government to do have not happened (random example: stopping the grant of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and other non-permanent residents), precisely because he does not fully control it. Maybe he will someday, but he doesn’t yet.
I believed they interpreted your post as pointing out the straightforward cost-benefit analysis (with an implication that it seems likely that we’d end up behaving according to that analysis). And they are pointing out that our government often doesn’t behave in a way that is compliant with a straightforward analysis.
It doesn’t seem like a very out-there interpretation of your post, maybe it is wrong, though. In particular the implication that I’ve got in parenthesis is, for sure, reading between the lines and maybe wrong.
But I don’t really get the response of “This isn’t responsive to my comment.” It doesn’t seem to move the conversation forward or clarify anything. Seems like a dead-end. What’s the point?
