If somebody sets a house on fire and then the firefighters come to spray water on it, should we blame them for causing water damage? Although I guess in your thinking Milei is putting out the fire by bulldozing the house with the people inside.
Whichever it ends up being, I think it’s still generally true that in the political world, people who increase fixed costs, causing future financial problems, are never among those who are most blamed for the problems. It’s always the fixers who are blamed.
And yet that’s exactly how the burden of proof works. You made a claim: that it is the only way to deal with the problem. That is a purported statement of fact. The onus is on you to back that up.
He’s dealing with the problem by massively increasing suffering. Why is that a good thing?
Other than for the upper class, I mean…
If somebody sets a house on fire and then the firefighters come to spray water on it, should we blame them for causing water damage? Although I guess in your thinking Milei is putting out the fire by bulldozing the house with the people inside.
Whichever it ends up being, I think it’s still generally true that in the political world, people who increase fixed costs, causing future financial problems, are never among those who are most blamed for the problems. It’s always the fixers who are blamed.
You didn’t answer my question. Why is massively increasing suffering a good way of dealing with the problem?
Because it’s the only way to deal with the problem.
Please provide evidence to back up that claim. Or is that just a guess?
I’m not sure if I accept you dropping the burden of proof on me here.
And yet that’s exactly how the burden of proof works. You made a claim: that it is the only way to deal with the problem. That is a purported statement of fact. The onus is on you to back that up.