What Dan Crenshaw Thinks About Vaccine Passports

12 views

3 years ago

0

Save

Dan Crenshaw

3 appearances

Dan Crenshaw is a politician and former United States Navy SEAL officer serving as the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 2nd congressional district since 2019. His new book "Fortitude: American Resilience in the Outrage Era" is now available everywhere. https://amzn.to/3b0jyxL

Comments

Write a comment...

Transcript

Well, there's a suspicion. People have suspicion about the government. There's a lot of people that don't want to get the vaccine because they're worried about the government. That exists in minority communities and in more poor communities. What are your thoughts about this vaccine passport concept? Because a lot of people find that deeply problematic. Giving the government this ability to let people travel or not travel based on whether or not you've been vaccinated. The left cannot let go of COVID. They can't let go of it. They want it around. They want to keep spending money based on this sort of moral stance that we need to keep supporting communities because of COVID. And that we need to keep doing things and taking excessive action because of COVID. Why do you think that is? Because they love collectivism and they love centralized control of the economy and society. I recall a definition we were looking at earlier. Yeah, sounds like fascists. And again, I always distinguish between liberals and progressives on this one. Okay, I think there should be an alliance between real liberals and conservatives in the future. And that's how we're going to solve problems. You know, I talk to Brett Weinstein all the time. Weinstein, if you talk to him all the time, you know his fucking last name. Oh, Jesus. Harvey Weinstein. Brett Weinstein. All right. Anyway, I think anyway, he's like I'm a hardcore liberal. He's like I'm a radical liberal and we just agree on so many things because he's a classical liberal. And if you're going to describe yourself as liberal, you mean the classical sense in most cases. And you want nice things. You have the sense of compassion and you want nice things from people. Maybe it's healthcare. Maybe it's to take care of people when they fall on hard times. These are good things. These are not bad things. These are not things that conservatives even disagree with. We now we generally have a different philosophy on how to how to find solutions for those problems. That's the center. I guess if we're always like grasping for the center, which a lot of people are and I always kind of question like what do you mean by that? But maybe that's the right way to look at it. Liberals are good at having enough empathy and compassion to see what might need to be changed. Conservatives are good at finding the solutions for that change that maintains the good things that got us here in the first place. You can't burn down all the foundations of a society just because you're not at utopia yet. Remember utopia is defined as in Greek as being nowhere and you'll always burn things down to grasp for that. You can't get to that point. So I think that's the right Alliance. I kind of forgot what the initial question was. Well, it's all you're talking about the difference between a classical liberal. When you say classical liberal, I always think you're trying to like pretend you're liberal when you're really a conservative because there's a lot of people that use that term classical liberal and it's like, what do you believe? Things get sneaky. I think there's a real problem with definitions. There's a real problem with like, you got to focus on the definition. What Chris Rock was saying though about like gangs, like that you have like, I'm more conservative and I believe you have these predetermined patterns of behavior that people subscribe to without any independent thinking, without any objective thinking and it's a real problem with human beings. Like I think ultimately what everybody wants is what's good for the community. They want for themselves selfishly, but they also want for their friends and neighbors and loved ones and family members. They want what's good for everybody, but they can't agree in what is good for everybody. And then when people don't have, they look at people who do have and they go, well, how the fuck do they have? And then some grifter will come along and they have because they've taken from you and that therein lies the problem because if you're not educated or if you haven't like deeply researched the ideas, especially with an objective perspective, you can sort of believe a lot of these grifters, a lot of these people that come along and they say crazy shit like tax the rich or eat the rich and like, oh Jesus Christ, how did they get rich? You would not take it. Did they get rich from stealing or did they get rich from discipline and hard work and decades, decades in the trenches? You're dealing with two very different things. Well, classically liberal philosophy would ask that question because there's a sense of justice involved with any question. And that sense of justice is, did somebody infringe on your rights and what are rights? Well, life, liberty, property, generally speaking, in the classical sense. You can go further back in time before classic enlightenment principles came about in the 18th century. But then you're dealing with feudalism, then you're dealing with tribalism, then you're dealing with what I think a lot on the left want to bring us back to, the sort of subjugating people into different identities and hierarchies based on those identities. That's a really bad place to be. They want to bring us back to that moment in history. What the enlightenment period did was say, look, you can keep dividing people up all day long. Eventually you just get to an individual. So maybe we should look at how individuals act and then have a really rational structure about how we define incentives and how we define justice. And justice should be defined as somebody infringing, person A infringing on the rights of person B. Or person A making it in a hierarchy for unworthy reasons, something other than a meritocracy. That would be an injustice. No, I know you said that the left is fascinated by COVID or obsessed with COVID, but we didn't really cover it. That was the original question. I got really philosophical. No, that's okay. That was the original question. Well, it's obviously a bad idea. It's not and it's obviously a bad idea because like the and a lot of the well-intentioned people on the left tend to they're well-intentioned, but they do tend to live like they're still in grad school. And I know because I went to Harvard in a policy school. I went to the Harvard Kennedy School after the military and there's an infatuation with being able to design the perfect policy on paper. Now, that's the first step, of course. Now, the second step is how do you implement it? And also again, whose rights are you infringing on when you implement these things? These are the questions they don't ask. This is what a conservative always asks. Again, when I talk about how to solve problems through a framework of limiting principles, this is what I mean. You have to ask these questions. And so what how you know, what is the practicality of this? And it's not practical at all, frankly, depending on what they mean by a COVID passport. Also, maybe we should define that first. But but it's what's one thing to ask people like, hey, I don't know, we're a green bracelet if you already got the vaccine and you've already had COVID or both or either or. But it's not that it's like limiting your ability to travel, which is an excessive infringement on your rights. And also and also, is it really even scientific given the trends that we're seeing? I mean, in all no matter how you approach this question, it seems like a really bad idea. When you say is it even scientific? What do you mean by that? Meaning we've been traveling for a year without vaccines. Some well in a limited aspect. Some people have traveled a lot. Limited capacity. Yeah. I mean, it's somewhat limited. Some will know if you look at the airline trends. Yeah, that's severely limited. Fairly. Yeah. I spent a lot of time at airports over the last year. But that's a but I know but I know I know how crowded they are every time I'm there. And yeah, there was definitely a time period where there were ghost towns. But that hasn't been the case for many, many. But it's still not even 50% of what it was a year ago. Yeah. Or a year and a half ago. I don't know the exact numbers. I don't know what it is. I just know that we've been living with it just like you have to live with a pandemic. Yeah. You don't have a choice. Here's a big difference. Maybe maybe everything boils down to this difference. The right believes, look, you don't have a choice. You got to make the best of it. You got to keep living. You got to you got to mitigate risk where you can. But you can't mitigate risk at the expense of everything else. And the left says, no, no, no, no. You have to mitigate risk at the expense of everything else. No cost is too high because if it just saves one life, this is the fundamental difference. The problem they don't take into account is it costs a lot of lives. It costs a lot of lives through suicide, depression, drug addiction. There's a lot of schools closing has been excessively bad. And there's no science to indicate that this is that this is what our kids need. I have a friend who lives in Nevada and their community was ravaged by suicide with young kids. And they're devastated by it. And they're trying to figure out like what there's a massive escalation of suicides in high school age kids because of the pandemic on lockdown. You have a higher chance of dying from the flu if you're under 20 years old. Why doesn't Dr. Fauci ever say that? Why does it? Why does he go? Hey, you could die if you're 14. You could. Yes, you could. But you have to contextualize the information you're given. This is why America has lost trust in their public health officials because they never contextualize anything. They never give you the probability of risk. Catch new episodes of the Joe Rogan experience for free only on Spotify. Watch back catalog JRE videos on Spotify, including clips, easily, seamlessly switch between video and audio experience on Spotify. You can listen to the JRE in the background while using other apps and can download episodes to save on data costs all for free. Spotify is absolutely free. You don't have to have a premium account to watch new JRE episodes. You just need to search for the JRE on your Spotify app. Go to Spotify now to get this full episode of the Joe Rogan experience.