I've seen a few interviews between "conflicting" intellectuals of this kind before. One or both sides explain themselves, and they ask a few questions, but they kind of tip-toe around the really challenging stuff that might cause strong irreconcilable disagreement. I know from things Noah has written that there were areas he could have pushed back on Caplan more but simply choose not to.
I don't know if there is a way around this. If things got really heated it wouldn't really help either party personally. And "winning" the debate, if such a thing could be done through conflict, really wouldn't change public policy.
I think a better format for these debates might be to have stated "falsifiable" criteria that the other person could focus on. "I would change my mind on this issue if X, Y, and Z were true."
Caplan sort of offers this "I would be against Open Borders if it caused Civil War", but such a hypothetical is rather hard to prove.
This was a nearly intolerable conversation to listen to for one reason: I counted maybe two times that Bryan let Noah finish a complete thought. Hardly a conversation at all.
I call myself an open borders advocate, but I have a criticism of one of Bryan’s argument tactics.
He’s absolutely right that most/all of the criticisms of open borders could and should be converted to criticisms of the first world’s welfare state and overly lenient CJ policies. But this ignores the fact (or at least strong possibility) that public opinion is sticky on those issues.
I’m pretty certain that the average Somali immigrant is a net negative for the US. That could be remedied by eliminating welfare and putting the criminals in prison (or deporting) readily. But I don’t see public opinion allowing either of those options anytime soon, especially with black immigrants.
Maybe I’m too anchored to the current political mood and underestimate its flexibility.
Sounds like there's some tension between "I want to convert them and be friends" and "Since this is reality, I don’t actually convert Noah in real time. I probably never will."
Is Substack picking on me, or is the mentioned episode available only to paid subscribers of aporia? I'd like to hear it, but I’ve never heard of aporia and I’m not going to buy a subscription just for this.
Thanks for the kind words. I enjoyed our conversation.
I've seen a few interviews between "conflicting" intellectuals of this kind before. One or both sides explain themselves, and they ask a few questions, but they kind of tip-toe around the really challenging stuff that might cause strong irreconcilable disagreement. I know from things Noah has written that there were areas he could have pushed back on Caplan more but simply choose not to.
I don't know if there is a way around this. If things got really heated it wouldn't really help either party personally. And "winning" the debate, if such a thing could be done through conflict, really wouldn't change public policy.
I think a better format for these debates might be to have stated "falsifiable" criteria that the other person could focus on. "I would change my mind on this issue if X, Y, and Z were true."
Caplan sort of offers this "I would be against Open Borders if it caused Civil War", but such a hypothetical is rather hard to prove.
This was a nearly intolerable conversation to listen to for one reason: I counted maybe two times that Bryan let Noah finish a complete thought. Hardly a conversation at all.
I call myself an open borders advocate, but I have a criticism of one of Bryan’s argument tactics.
He’s absolutely right that most/all of the criticisms of open borders could and should be converted to criticisms of the first world’s welfare state and overly lenient CJ policies. But this ignores the fact (or at least strong possibility) that public opinion is sticky on those issues.
I’m pretty certain that the average Somali immigrant is a net negative for the US. That could be remedied by eliminating welfare and putting the criminals in prison (or deporting) readily. But I don’t see public opinion allowing either of those options anytime soon, especially with black immigrants.
Maybe I’m too anchored to the current political mood and underestimate its flexibility.
This was very impressive, Bryan. Good work.
Sounds like there's some tension between "I want to convert them and be friends" and "Since this is reality, I don’t actually convert Noah in real time. I probably never will."
Are your stated goals a waste of time?
Is Substack picking on me, or is the mentioned episode available only to paid subscribers of aporia? I'd like to hear it, but I’ve never heard of aporia and I’m not going to buy a subscription just for this.
Really looking forward to this listen