Details That You Should Include In Your Article On How We Should Do Something About Mentally Ill Homeless People

Suppose that you, an ordinary person, open your door and start choking on yellow smoke. You think “there should be less pollution”, and call up your representative.

The technical expert hears “there should be less pollution” and immediately has dozens of questions. Do you just want to do the obvious things, like lower the detection threshold for hexamethyldecawhatever? Or do you want to ban tetraethylpentawhatever, which is vital for the baby formula food chain and would cause millions of babies to die if you banned it?

Any pollution legislation must be made of specific policies. In some sense, it’s impossible to be “for” or “against” the broad concept of “reducing pollution”. Everyone would be against a bill that devastated the baby formula supply chain for no benefit. And everyone would support some magical bill that managed to clean the skies without any extra hardship on industry. In between, there are just a million different tradeoffs; some are good, others bad. So (the technocrat concludes), it’s incoherent to support “reducing pollution”. You can only support (or oppose) particular plans.

On the other hand, ordinary people should be able to say “I want to stop choking on yellow smoke every time I go outside” without having to learn the difference between hexamethyldecawhatever and tetraethylpentawhatever.

Leave a Comment