I'm sure POSIWID gets used as a reductive way to avoid thinking through things, but his examples seem just as devoid of thought. His 67% cancer center could probably cure more cancers if society invested more in cancer treatments and research, or if doctors persisted in continuing treatment instead of palliative care more often. Russia could nuke Kiev, or Ukraine's Western allies could send their own troops to push Russia back. The New York bus system could convert to all electric vehicles but that would cost a lot and have its own environmental considerations.

In the current conversation, the policy could have been based on research about where and how cartels were doing their laundering, and designed in a way that minimized the impact on non-cartel immigrant communities.

In all of those cases, the system is the result of choices that lead to the current outcomes, and I think that's the part that's worth thinking about.

"The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure as many patients as possible" seems also like an extreme? They are businesses, after all, and there will be cases that would be unreasonable to pursue?

Damn, what a waste of words. Does nothing but give brain dead examples while ignoring that the phrase is critical of systemic societal issues.

Law and order is the stated intention. The cops not solving crimes for the poor and them beating the poor is the system's purpose.

Instead of noticing that violence isn't applied equally, or that unequal resources are spent enforcing justice for the rich versus the poor, he compares it to carbon emissions from busses. Wow, how insightful.

Yes! That one, thanks.